I NEVER met Professor Endersbee, but we corresponded by email.
He contacted me about six years ago when I was working on the Murray River and water issues. He expressed concern about Australia’s great artesian basin and over extraction of what he considered a finite resource.
We later corresponded over climate change issue. Lance believed we must try harder to understand the causes of natural climate change instead of assuming anthropogenic global warming. He was particularly interested in the oceans as a source of carbon dioxide. On June 24, 2009 he wrote:
“The relationship between CO2 and ocean temperature is ordained by the solubility relationship. I attach [see above] a chart showing my experience curve for the only reliable temperature records we have. It is difficult to argue against a correlation of 0.99.
I also attach [see below] my experience curve for Global average sea surface temperature and earth rotation. Note the correlation of 0.99.
The reason why SST, CO2 and LOD correlate so well is that they are all dependent variables. The external driving force is the independent variable. It is the electromagnetic field imposed on the earth which causes motion (rotation) and electromagnetically induced heating. The driving force is nominally from the Sun.
However, I do not believe that the Sun causes its own sunspots. I suspect the source is a pulsating emf from galactic sources. As health and time permit I will contemplate further.”
Lance died last week, on Thursday October 1. He was 84 years old.
Since his dead I have learnt that before his official retirement Lance was a world authority on rock behaviour and tunnelling, a former president of the Institution of Engineers Australia, and a recipient of its highest award, the Peter Nicol Russell Memorial Medal.
He had worked on the Snowy Mountain hydroelectricity scheme and was once Pro-Vice Chancellor at Melbourne’s Monash University.
Lance did not consider nature or climate benign and man rather puny in the scheme of things… unless we harness science and ideas in practical ways to protect and nurture civilization. Thus Lance championed big infrastructure projects.
He encouraged me at different times, suggesting that it was important to stay “candid and thoughtful”.
Lance Endersbee died last week, but his ideas will live on.
******************
Links and Notes
Lance Endersbee:
Emeritus Professor, AO, FTSE. ME, Hon FIEAust., Hon Mem Eng Inst Canada, F.ASCE. Former Pro Vice Chancellor, Monash University, 1988-9, Dean, Faculty of Engineering, 1976-88.
Extensive career in hydropower engineering and water resource projects 1950-1976 in Australia and overseas with Snowy Mountains Authority, Hydroelectric Commission of Tasmania, and the United Nations.
Vice Pres. Int Soc Rock Mechanics 1966-70. Pres. IEAust 1980, Cr 1967-80.
Recipient: Peter Nicol Russell award 1986, Chapman Medal 1967, Warren Prize 1963.
Book, A Voyage of Discovery, a history of ideas about the earth, with a new understanding of the global resources of water and petroleum, and the problems of climate change. 2005.
Blog posts:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/02/carbon-dioxide-versus-temperature/
On Line Opinion Author:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=261
The Great Artesian Basin and Plutonic water http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1215
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I was so sad to read that Lance Endersbee had died. A few years ago I gave a U3A course in the Southern Highlands entitled “Global Warming: Are Humans Really to Blame?” and Lance was kind enough to allow me to use a number of slides from his book “A Voyage of Discovery”. This book is a real inspiration, throwing new light on the origins of deep groundwater, petroleum deposits and the mechanics of deep earthquakes. It also includes inspiring biographies of past outstanding scholars who were ahead of their time. Professor Endersbee was an orginal thinker and I’m sure will be sorely missed.
How sad. He will be sadly missed 🙁
Oh Heck, that is sad to hear. We both worked for the same Organisation during our careers, The Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, and his loss will be felt.
“It is the electromagnetic field imposed on the earth which causes motion (rotation) and electromagnetically induced heating.”
Sounds like Lance Endersbee was a profoundly stupid and ignorant person, if he really believed this. You show yet again that you are not able to distinguish even the most obvious nonsense from actual science.
Dear Jennifer,
It is a pity Endersbee died too early to answer a few questions I had for him. But anyway my condoleances to his family.
One problem I have with his 21 year moving average is that he plots that with the CO2 levels, which are monthly measurements, over a period of only 50 years, much too short to see any real correlation, and any individual variabilty is smoothed out. One can find such spurious high correlations between any variable that has a coincidencal increase in the same period (number of people, hog farms, cars,…). But that doesn’t say anything about the causation (if any at all).
As one can see, the correlation is absent (even negative!) in other periods of time like the 1945-1975 period:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
Where the yearly average SST, the 21-year moving average SST, the accumulated year by year emissions and the yearly level in the atmosphere are plotted.
As can be seen, the correlation between temperature and CO2 level in the atmosphere is weak if plotted over 100 years, including negative over some periods. But the correlation between accumulated emissions and atmospheric levels is near perfect:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_2004.jpg
As the emissions are near twice the increase in the atmosphere, there is no room for additional net emissions from nature, except for a small addition due to higher temperatures (about 4 ppmv/K) since the LIA. Thus the correlation in this case is also causation…
“As can be seen, the correlation between temperature and CO2 level in the atmosphere is weak if plotted over 100 years, including negative over some periods.”
Not correct. Over 100 years, the correlation between monthly CO2 values and monthly global average temperatures is strong. See for example here. Over shorter periods, of course the correlation is weaker. Of course you can find parts of the record where the temperature appears to drop while CO2 goes up. Choose a short enough or arbitrary enough time period and you won’t find any meaningful correlation at all between any climate factor and the global average temperature. Do you conclude from this that nothing influences the climate?
RW October 6th, 2009 at 4:52 am
Endersbee tried to prove that (21 jear moving average) temperature was causing the CO2 increase. You are trying to prove that CO2 caused the temperature increase…
To begin with: temperature leads CO2 changes over months to years (with one to several months lag), besides the trend. Thus on short term, there is a good correlation, but that proves the opposite of what you want to prove. To give a source that isn’t not in the sceptic camp: Pieter Tans, head of the NOAA unit that controls CO2 measurements all over the world:
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf see the second halve of the speach he held for the celebration of 50 years Mauna Loa.
Thus the month-by-month correlation between temperature and CO2 increase speed doesn’t tell anything about the cause of the trend…
That doesn’t prove or disprove that increased CO2 has no influence on temperature. Therefore we need to look at the trend itself, not at the month-to-month increase rate.
If there is a substantial influence of CO2 on temperature, that should give a reasonable correlation between the two trends. The 21-year moving average of Endersbee shows that there is cooling when CO2 over the same period goes up. Not a really convincing answer.
We can increase the averaging to 30 years to look at a “climatic” effect, thus excluding any short living effects (like El Niño):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_31.jpg
Even there, flat and increasing periods are consecutive, where the next flat period is already between us… In fact one need several 60+ periods, as that would include full cycles of PDO, NAO, etc… which are influencing temperature too. Thus our temperature/CO2 correlation series is much too short to give an answer in how far CO2 has an influence on temperature…
My condolences to the family of Dr. Lance Endersbee.
He contributed to science and to mankind by using his time and his training to try to understand and to communicate honestly his conclusions about the causes of climate change.
Dr. Endersbee has made a far greater contributions to mankind than will the consensus scientists who used their time and talents reporting, “I agree with the majority opinion, now send me some more grant funds.”
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Jennifer, at this time it would have been more respectful to hilite some of his more enduring achievemnts than to expose him so.
Here’s a Philip Adams interview with Lance Endersbee from 2006
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2006/1808528.htm
There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature over the long term;
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf
There is inferior correlation between CO2 and temperature over the 20thC [Fig 4];
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/PDO_AMO.htm
And there is negative correlation between CO2 and temperature since 1998;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/offset:-347/scale:0.008/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend
Vale Lance Endersbee.
RW,
The late Lance Endersbee is quite correct in stating that the Earth’s rotation is electrically driven, and that this prodigious energy source also heats it internally. All part of the Plasma Model physics which you don’t seem to know of.
Jocelyn Maxwell,
Yes his book is mandatory reading for all earth scientists – his ideas about ground water are spot on though the expanding Earth theory etc, one might dispute. It’s sad to read the malevolent posts by the mean spirited AGW brigade however, almost close to dancing on his grave.
The exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and ocean is not governed by a simple Henry’s law relationship, but rather by some fairly complex equilibria that were first worked out by Revelle and colleagues. One wonders if Endersbee was aware of this, because that is where such a discussion must start.
Ferdinand – you don’t appeat to be properly estimating correlations. Simply plotting CO2 against time, and temperature against time, and visually comparing, is wrong. You need to plot CO2 against temperature, and fit a line. Robert Grumbine did this in the link I posted. The results are extremely clear.
The existence of a correlation does not tell us anything about the cause of the correlation, as you correctly say. But how very depressing, to see people denying that the correlation is even there. Why?
cohenite – what a deficient education you must have had, not to know the difference between the US and the whole world, or between weather and climate.
Louis Hissink – ha ha, very good. I’m sure I don’t know anything about this ‘plasma model’. I make a living in science, not bullshit. You, Endersbee, cohenite and Marohasy, as we all see clearly, don’t know the difference.
Louis, why does the earth’s rotation need driving at all? Whats wrong with conservation of (angular ) momentum as an explanation for its continuing rotation? It’s not losing energy because of friction between the atmosphere and space is it? And if it did need driving by some mysterious force, what is the explanation for the earths continuing revolution round the sun? Another mysterious force? Not to mention the suns rotation itself? And what of the suns motion around the galactic centre? And our galaxy’s motion in relation to the other members of the local cluster, and the local clusters motion within the local supercluster. And so on.
Gravity and conservation of momentum are sufficient explanations for the above phenomena. As for the existence of matter and energy in the first place, we can all speculate.
RW October 7th, 2009 at 4:47 am
RW,
There is a pretty good correlation between CO2 and temperature over the Vostok period:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/Vostok_trends.gif (corr.coeff = 0.86; R^2=0.75)
but for most of the (pre-industrial) time that is one way causation: temperature variations cause CO2 variations. There may be some feedback from CO2 on temperature, but a drop of 40 ppmv at the end of the Eemian had no measurable effect on temperature or ice sheet formation.
Even in current times there is indeed a correlation, but on short time (months to a few years), that is again one way causation: temperature variations cause the CO2 increase speed variations around the trend.
Rests the influence of increasing CO2 levels on temperature in the past century or so. Here is the graph (1900-1904):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_1900_2004.jpg
Indeed some correlation, but a small change in CO2 has a large influence on temperature in some periods and a large change in CO2 has zero influence in other periods. These periods are following each other in about 30 years parts, where the correlation is alternating positive switching to zero or even slightly negative in the next period. Which means that even if there is an influence of CO2, that is overwhelmed by something else in some periods of time and that “something else” may also help to increase the temperature in the other periods…
Conclusion: as long as we don’t know what causes the cycles in warming/standstill, it is near impossible to know the real influence of CO2 on temperature…
Conclusion: as long as we don’t know what causes the cycles in warming/standstill, it is near impossible to know the real influence of CO2 on temperature…
We can analyse what is happening right now quite well.
The late Lance Endersbee is quite correct in stating that the Earth’s rotation is electrically driven, and that this prodigious energy source also heats it internally. All part of the Plasma Model physics which you don’t seem to know of.
every day, i learn something new.
RW
“I make a living in science, not bullshit”
As a cleaner no doubt!
(beware of those who have to flaunt pieces of paper to prove wisdom, or rely on authority!)
Marcus,
“As a cleaner no doubt!”
He COULD be a reporter covering Science. His writing and knowledge is up to that low quality!!
For those wondering why the earth rotation, or any other bodies rotation, might need a little help, I would remind you that gravity itself is a drag slowing the rotation. You don’t even need water sloshing around.
Then there is the solar wind pushing on the earth continuously with plasma, er, uh, charged particles and magnetic fields.
Then there is the almost continuous meteors and micro-meteors and other space junk impacting the earth.
Basically there is quite a bit of force trying to disturb the rotation and orbit. One wonders how it keeps spinning and orbiting so nicely!!! Most projections based on gravitational models show that the Solar system, over millions to billions of years, should basically be flying off in all directions!!!! So y’all tell us, what has caused all these bodies to settle into such a nice, relatively stable, configuration???
Eli Rabbett,
“The exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and ocean is not governed by a simple Henry’s law relationship, but rather by some fairly complex equilibria that were first worked out by Revelle and colleagues.”
Yes, I believe they made quite an impact on modelling:
http://www.revell.com/
Pays the rent
Phil,
The conservation of angular momentum explanation assumes an electrically inert sphere rotating in a vacuum. That is the Newtonian model.
The earth is better described as an electrically charged sphere in a very active plasma environment – It is therefore doing work in rotating and hence needs an energy source.
Given it’s immersion in the solar magnetic field, etc, unless it continually receives energy to maintain its rotation, it should, in terms of electromagnetic damping, slow down. Hence the known Birkeland currents entering and leaving the polar regions seem to be the driving force for the earth’s rotation.
Also it’s axial speed does change, especially when affected by solar coronal mass ejections, as well as sunspot activity. All rather strange effects if the only force in the cosmos is gravity.
The gravitational only force model relies on perpetual motion for the earth’s rotation.
(Incidentally electrically charging a rotating flywheel also affects its rotation).
Larry,
If you refer to the well known and proven fact of the motional instability shown by the 3 body experiment in which only gravity is allowed to operate, then clearly the present day’s solar system “stability” becomes very probematic.
There are some who point to the possibility the present configuration is only about 3,500 years old, if our ancestors histories are considered.
The Lyellians however regard those histories as myths or exaggerations, and instead adopt the present uniformist model, universe created 13 billion years ago, and Earth 4,500Ma ago.
I tend to put my money on our ancestors histories rather than the totally imaginative constructs of the Lyellians with their perpetual motion machines.
Dear Louis, you often have interesting things to say on AGW, but I think you would be doing all sceptics a favour if you did not make some of your outrageous statements about things such as the world only being 3,500 years old. With all due respect that requires throwing out everything we think we know about the planet and its history, including humans development. Some of the brightest people are eccentric and weird and even mad, and also interesting….but please if I was visiting this blog for the first time I would be thinking what sort of crackpots are involved.
The fact that you can believe the world is only 3,500 years old suggests to me your other thoughts should be treated highly sceptically. This is not the first time I have thought this and I only mention it because I think it gives the warmers something to hang their hats on by being able to say ” look at the marohasy site and the sorts of people who are sceptical”
please stick to the science of AGW / or lack thereof for all our sakes.
I hope I am not insulting you here, it is truly not my intention, I would love to sit down and chat over beer for hours about some of your thoughts, even though I think many of them are crazy, I think it would be very stimulating conversation.
Dear Toby,
I realise that Louis is quite capable of defending himself, but you should really read what he actually says, which is not that that Earth is only 3,500 yrs old.
And his other views that seem to rouse your ire have more backing in empiricism than most of the conventional theories (v. theoretical, existing only in theory, hypothetical).
Toby
I have never said the Earth was 3,500 years old – and I certainly did not write that on this thread. Perhaps you could re-read what I wrote and reassess your opinions?
RW,
So you make a living from science do you? And never heard of the Plasma Model either? You must be new here and sound like a typical lefty – go read the material at the following web site http://plasmascience.net/tpu/TheUniverse.html – it belongs to Dr. A. Peratt, one of Hannes Alfven’s students and author of the text Physics of the Plasma Universe. Most of the Plasma Model scientific papers are published under the auspices of the IEEE. It’s sort of a parallel universe to the overly imaginative one you seem familiar with.
Your comment reminds me of an article I read today by Nancy Morgan – which I post here in full. Slowly I am starting to understand why AGW seems so easily accepted by people – Nancy supplies a clue. Bernard Goldberg who wrote the books, Bias, and Arrogance, in the US media, made the same point from a liberal perspective – liberals/socialists only think with one set of ideas – and from their cultural backgrounds never venture outside of their intellectual prison and thus never know of anything else except their own, thoroughly inbred intellectualism.
“In early 1992, I heard five words that were to drastically alter the course of my life. H. Ross Perot was on TV. He held up a toilet seat and said “The government paid $700.00 for this toilet seat.” He then stated, “And this is public knowledge.” Huh? Perot then went on to outline more fascinating nuggets of information I had absolutely no knowledge of. He pulled out charts and graphs and proceeded to inform me of a world of facts to which I had never been exposed. Having long prided myself on being informed, I decided to educate myself on all this “public knowledge.”
What I found appalled and angered me. And changed my life forever. For the first time in my life, I picked up a National Review magazine and started reading. I moved on to the Washington Times, American Spectator and various other conservative publications I had never been aware of before. The more I read, the angrier I got.
I had always assumed that if something was on TV or in the newspapers, it was correct. I always assumed that our elected officials knew better than I how to address the problems of our nation. I always assumed that my friends’ opinions were more valid and informed than mine. I was 39 years old and just finding out how incredibly naive I was. Having lived in Los Angeles since my teens, I was never exposed to any other than the liberal point of view. I made the mistake of assuming it was the only valid view, just as millions of other Americans still do.
I had adopted the views of the herd, assuming that since everyone felt that way, it was the right way to feel. Besides, I was too busy living my life to spend the time necessary to form my own views independently of my peers. I had taken the easy way out, accepting and spouting the currently fashionable talking points as my own. And patting myself on the back for being informed and knowledgeable. Ouch.
After reveling in government approved and politically correct self esteem for so many years, the descent into humility was painful. How naive was I to have blindly accepted so many premises without question? How ignorant was I to have advocated certain positions based on face value and cheap sound bites? How stupid was I to have allowed others to manipulate and exploit my ignorance? The answer: Pretty darn stupid.
The anger I felt stemmed from finally realizing that no matter how thin the pancake, there are always two sides. And I had only been exposed to one. That didn’t set right. I felt I had been lied to my whole life. I responded by making it my mission to inform everyone I knew of the astonishing revelations I was finding on a daily basis. That was another big mistake.
I assumed everyone in my world would be just as appalled as I to find that things were not as they seemed. I studied, I amassed facts, I quoted sources, and I lectured. And I got yet another lesson in humility. Instead of applauding my efforts, my family, my friends, my husband and my co-workers sent me to the woodshed. I soon realized that my facts took a back seat to their emotions. I found that the conservative point of view had been judged invalid years before I became aware of it. The case was already closed. Hadn’t I heard?
I persisted. “But how can you dispute these facts?” I railed. I quickly found out. Liberals demolished my factual arguments by demonizing me, thus relieving themselves of the need to entertain or debate any facts that challenged their world view. Being stubborn as well as stupid, I continued my quest to inform one and all of the error of their way of thinking. With predictable results. Soon, everyone in my world informed me that there must be something wrong with me. Eventually, I started to believe them, and finally decided to keep my opinions to myself.
I tried. For three years, I consciously tried to keep my mouth shut. I tried to go along to get along. I failed. Long story short: I lost my husband. I no longer speak with my feminist mother and my liberal siblings. Having continued to read voraciously about all things conservative, I was exposed to the role Christianity played in our country’s founding. After further research and soul searching, I eventually became a Christian. Learning to have faith in Christ enabled me to have faith in myself — and faith in my traditional and conservative views.
Eight years after my epiphany, and 33 years after moving to Los Angeles, I sold my home and business. I said good-bye to the few friends and family I still had, and left Los Angeles for good. I knew there had to be a place in the world where I could be myself without ticking everyone off. After a lot of searching, I finally found it. Its called Murrells Inlet, South Carolina. Here in this little fishing village, I have found peace and happiness. I can identify myself as a conservative without having to go stand in the corner. Here in South Carolina, I am normal. I am also the luckiest of women.
Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com and lives in South Carolina.”
Toby,
I just spotted my reference to 3,500 years ago – I stated that some think the present solar system configuration is only 3,500 thousand years old. This is based on the work of Velikovsky, a Jewish pyscho-analyst who published some provocatives books based on his interpretation of Middle East, and from research, histories of our ancestors.
What started him off on this exercise was something Sigmund Freud asserted in his book Moses and Monotheism – that Moses wasn’t Jewish. As both Freud and Velikovsky were Jews, this strikes me as somewhat interesting and Velikovsky embarked on research to prove Freud wrong.
So he started on the Jewish documents dating from Moses’ time – except that he could not find any contemporary Egyptian documents describing the Jewish records. This he though most peculiar, for today it would amount to the Palestinians not knowing anything about Israel, but the Isralies documenting the war of attrition imposed on them by the Palestinians etc.
What he did find was an older Egyptian document that seemed to describe the same events as reported in the Jewish texts, and that prompted him to wonder whether Eygptian chronology was expanded, and hence faulty, assuming Jewish chronology was accurate, or that the Jewish chronology was compressed, and the Egyptian one correct. Subsequent work showed that he was somewhat wrong, and that Middle East chronology was excessively expanded, as shown by the stratigraphical work of Gunnar Heinsohn of Bremen University. (Heinsohn’s work is based on the idea that if there isn’t any stratigraphical evidence for a particular civilisation/culture, ie, archaeological evidence, then it didn’t exist. It’s the Habeas Corpus of history in other words).
What Velikovsky did find was that both the Jewish and, chronologically misplaced, Egyptian texts described some horrendous climate catastrophe involving all sorts of inexplicable phenomena (in our present understanding) such as rains of meteorites, red rain, plagues etc. His research also showed that this event was noticed globally by every group of humans over the planet.
Please do not deduce from this that I am then a mindless proselytiser of Velikovsky; I’m not because Velikovsky was a man of him time, a Jew having to cope with the German Historical Tradition, and (subconsciously) reacted accordingly.
Velikovsky’s sin was to wonder whether that in addition to gravity, another physical force was operating in the cosmos – electrodynamics – and for this he was metaphorically burnt at the stake by the blasphemed.
3,500 years ago? That is supposed to be the time of the Jewish Exodus which the Egyptians knew nothing about.
If the historical record is accurate, and we accept our ancestor’s descriptions of what they observed, then the present solar configuration might well be even closer to our time – say 750 BC?
I am handicapped by being an empiricist in which physical data, including imperfect human memories, documented as history or myths, compel me to specific deductions.
You seem to in thrall of more intellectual, almost Leyellian, evocations.
Louis, so could you put all of our minds at ease and tell us how old you believe the earth and universe is please.
I would be very grateful.
Louis, while you’re at it I’ve been intrigued by the comments you’ve made concerning a few things like “electric universe”, plasma stuff, non-Leyellian geology etc. Considering the fact that a lot of technical stuff on this site is way above my head, would it be possible for you(if you ever have the time) to direct me to information on these topics presented in layman’s terms?
Once again I would be very grateful.
RightBias.com
yes. a wonderful source of news.
Louis I apologise, you did not say the world was 3,500 years old, i have been trying to catch up on the threads since returning from a 2 week holiday in a beach house with no communication. I wrongly interpreted the 3,500 years and putting money on ancestors history and missed you were talking about the present solar configuration. Still a pretty out there thought in my opinion. I had never heard of Lyellians until your references.
Louis wrote:
“Larry,
If you refer to the well known and proven fact of the motional instability shown by the 3 body experiment in which only gravity is allowed to operate, then clearly the present day’s solar system “stability” becomes very probematic.”
You appear to be responding to a non-existent comment of mine. Having a senior moment, are we? Welcome to the club. After Jennifer returns from her Walkabout, you may want to consider following in her footsteps.
Louis also wrote:
“It’s sad to read the malevolent posts by the mean spirited AGW brigade however, almost close to dancing on his grave.”
Yes, that RW is a real piece of work, isn’t he? At first, I hadn’t intended to post anything on this thread, because I often put my foot in my mouth on these kinds of occasions, and because I wasn’t familiar with Lance’s work. I’m always saddened by the passing of a brilliant, nonstandard thinker.
It does not seem implausible that magnetic effects maintain the Earths rotation. While initial spin would have resulted from the momentum of mater in the accretion disk during the planets formation, even the slightest irregularity due to uneven distribution of mass concentrations would lead to a slowing in spin over millions of years. It should be noted that our moon now only rotates once around it’s axis per orbit of the Earth. It seems unlikely that the moon’s axial rotation was this slow at formation.
We do not truly know what causes the Earth’s magnetic field, nor why it reverses every few 100,000 years. The true cause of solar cycles is also an unknown. I feel the majority of the Earth’s internal heat is generated by radioactive elements, but it is not totally implausible that electromagnetic effects may play a part. Some unsubstantiated sources claim a correlation between solar activity and volcanism and tectonics. However, most people reading about AGW would now know that correlation is not causation. Given the unknowns I do not think the ideas of the late L. Endersbee can be dismissed out of hand.
On another note, my father also worked on the Snowy Mountains Scheme. I think of it as a time when people were motivated by hope and aspiration. Today we seem to be demotivated by fear orchestrated politicians mired in venality.
On a final note…RW trolling an Obituary…Class!
Hey Derek & Louis, you might find this book interesting. It discusses plasma theory in chapter 2, Velikovsky in chapter 4 and AGW in the fifth. I enjoyed the third one on relativity since I’m a maths/physics student. The book hasn’t convinced me of anything (it’s got no details, just overviews & opinions), but it’s certainly made me skeptical of mainstream physics. I remember when I was pro AGW a few years ago I was uneasy about the dodgy Excel model of the Earth’s climate we had to use for a thermodynamics assignment.
Tinos
I have the book and know the author. Thank you for drawing my attention to it in any case.
Toby,
Your reaction is understandable 🙂 but I just had a chat with a representative from a Perth company WA Solar who tells me that next month Australian businesses will have to start reporting their CO2 emissions in their operations and will be taxed on it. He also tells me that in a year or so every Australian will have to report their CO2 emissions – apparently the law was passed in 2007.
So all our efforts here seem to have been in vain – like it or not, we are going to be taxed on our emissions.
Derek,
The universe seems to have always existed, so it cannot have an age.
I recall decades ago when they tried to work out how long it took a proton to decay – the experiment was a dismal failure in that sense, but succeeded in discovering neutrinos, so it wasn’t a total waste of taxpayer funds.
Larry,
Not so much a senior moment but a response to something you posted here. Maybe I was too circumspect, since write the wrong idea here and you are quickly excoriated by the usual suspects.
Derek,
The website you will find most helpful is http://www.thunderbolts.info written specifically for the lay person. There many links to other resources allied to the Plasma Universe model as well plus links to texts etc. There is also a forum free to all. As usual good manners are expected.
Thanks Tinos, I’ve had a quick scan and the book looks interesting. The section on peppered moths caught my eye as it was in my Biology text covering “natural selection” and I already told my students that it was a load of rubbish.
Thanks Louis, I’ve bookmarked that site so I can explore it at my leisure. This is in fact quite timely as I’m about to explore modern cosmological origin theories with my yr. 10 class; “Critically examines theories of astronomy and how they have contributed to our understandings about the universe, and articulates personal theoretical preferences.”. I usually discuss the BB, steady state and a couple of creationist ideas, the students critique these and state a preference.
Does your comment above about the Universe being ageless align with the steady state theory by any chance?
Thanks again guys, much appreciated.
Derek,
The ageless universe idea derives from the plasma model in that it’s a basic scientific starting point. Hence putting forward the idea that the universe started is beyond the purview of the scientific method.
Derek,
The steady state universe put by Hoyle involves the continuous creation of matter.
It isn’t a scientific idea.
So Louis, are you saying that we can never know because there is no way of empirically testing the theory?
Derek
Science is limited to what it can we test by experiment – things that cannot be tested are not, then, scientific based ideas.
Knowledge, and hence our “knowing” is essentially the operation of our memory, whether stored in our brains, or as documented archives in a library.
To test something requires the existence of an observer and the discrete from the observer, the observed. As we seem to be part of the phenomenon called life, we cannot, then, physically separate ourselves from it in order to satisfy the basic requirements of the scientific method. We have to accept it as a given and the most parsimonious approach is to assume that the universe always existed. If it didn’t, then neither did we, so the issue is rhetorical and hence Lyellian.
Google “The Origins of Modern Geological Theory” by George Grinnell, (McMAster University, former geologist, then science historian).
Your students should find intellectual stimulation from these ideas.
Done and downloaded, thanks again Louis.
Sorry everyone for getting so off topic but these responses have been most beneficial to me. Thanks for your collective indulgence.
After three decades of continual increase, the mean Earth temperature has been decreasing steadily since 2002, as precise satellite measurements show. As a result, the steady rise in sea level has stopped since 2005.
World climate is a regular quasi-periodic phenomenon (see Fig. 2.1 of http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm ) that is driven by solar activity with a period of 75 – 85 years (Gleissberg cycle). Because of this regularity, it can be stated with absolute certainty that the mean Earth temperature will continue to decrease until 2040.
1. There exists an extremely close correlation between the changes in the mean global temperature and the small changes in the rotational velocity of the Earth – two physically unrelated geophysical quantities – (see Fig. 2.2 of http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm), which has been ignored by the mainstream climatologists, and leaves little room for a human influence on climate. Note that temperature lags rotation by 6 years. This close correlation results from the action of an hitherto unknown form of gravitational waves, galactic vacuum density waves, on the Sun and on the Earth (see http://www.icecap.us/images/uploads/Lobert_on_CO2.pdf ).
2. The orbital periods of all Solar System planets are very close to integer multiples and integer fractions of the periods of the Hale (22.14 years) and the Gleissberg (84 years) solar cycles. (See the posts of September 26, 2009 and October 6, 2009 in http://www.pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/a-new-book-elucidates-the-life-and-work-of-Dr.-Abdus-Salam ). This provides further evidence for the existence of super-Einsteinian gravitational waves and of their action on all celestial bodies of the Solar System.
The Close Correlation between Earth’s Surface Temperature and its Rotational Velocity as well as the Close Correlation between the Planetary Orbital Periods and the Periods of the Solar Cycles Prove that Climate Changes are Driven by a new form of Galactic Gravitational Waves (Vacuum Density Waves).
Progress in climatological science can only be achieved if the above physical facts are looked into in full depth.
Ref.: a) The posts of September 19, 2008 September 26, 2009 and October 6, 2009 in http://www.pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/a-new-book-elucidates-the-life-and-work-of-Dr.-Abdus-Salam
b) http://www.icecap.us/images/uploads/Lobert_on_CO2.pdf
Ferdinand – you’re not describing correlations when you say “a small change in CO2 has a large influence on temperature in some periods and a large change in CO2 has zero influence in other periods”. A blow by blow description of the wiggles in the graphs tells us nothing. Your own graph shows the strong correlation – even though it stops in 2004 for no good reason. Why are you denying what is in front of your very eyes?
Louis, you are providing excellent comedy and severely embarrassing all the ‘sceptics’ who populate this site. Can we just assume that you will enthusiastically promote any pseudo-science, no matter how obviously bullshit it is, or do you have some tiny remaining shred of intelligence in your atrophied brain?
Louis, I’ve just spent the morning perusing “Thunderbolts” and various link trails(school holidays) and have come to the conclusion that you have done me a disservice sir.
You have opened up a pandora’s box, another universe of enticement that threatens to overwhelm me. Could any of it be true? There is now a hunger in me that I dare not satisfy ere I neglect life itself!
You are a cruel man, cruel I say.
RW,
Standard ad hominem is it? Vilify the person and ignore the data? Perhaps it is you who are embarrassing the AGW crowd here with your intolerance and vilification.
And hiding behind a noms des plume shows what a typical cowardly Fabian you are.
Derek,
Oh I am sorry – 🙂 – excellent text to get hold of is Eric Lerner’s “The Big Bang Never Happened”, 1992. That started my journey off into the Plasma Model, but the heresy started earlier when I was confronted with Aboriginal stories that directly concerned my work, mineral exploration, and caused me serious brain ache until I realised what Lyell had done. It is, however, dangerous being too outspoken on this topic as the comments by RW indicate with their mean spirited thrust.
Some of the Thunderbolts TPODs might cause consternation, serious cognitive dissonance as it were, but the people behind it are not cranks etc – and some refuse to identify as they are still in active employment.
One thing I don’t take any notice of is Wikipedia – And Peratt has a topic on that specifically in terms of peer review issues. I’ll find it later this weekend. I would hate to overload you with too much data.
Have fun.
Louis, it seems that everyone else apart from RW has moved on so I’ll be naughty for a bit longer. Can you expand a little on your confrontation with Aboriginal stories, as I mentioned earlier, I am about to discuss cosmological theories with my Y10 class. I have in the past avoided indigenous dreamtime stories as I considered them to be myth and am not inclined to follow the PC mantra determined by my superiors.
If you have valid reasons for me to reconsider my position, please let me know.
Cheers.
Ferdinand; normally I wouldn’t go to such trouble, certainly not for a troll like RW, but you are a reasonable gent; the below linear trends of temperature clearly show no correlation with CO2 levels; they do however show a close correlation with ENSO;
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:1880/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1880/to:1910/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1910/to:1940/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1940/to:1976/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1940/to:1976/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1976/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1976/to:1998/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/to:2010
Derek,
During 1996 I commissioned an Aboriginal Heritage survey of land we were exploring for diamonds. The anthropologist was reptuable and I have in a hands off approach , not informing him, or the traditional owners (TO’s) where our targets or areas of interest were.
The TO’s voluntarily told him of a spot they recognised as the same as the Argyle diamond mine 150km to the south and explained it via a Barramundi story, where the Barra’ went into the ground where I was interested, and out at Argyle. This took my anthro completely by surprise, and me too. How did TO’s know about geological events 1100Ma ago.
Wolfe Creek Crater near Halls Creek is the place where the sky serpent/snake, after travelling under ground forming Sturt Creek, left the ground to the sky – this story was linked to the morning star.
I related these anectodes to contractors from Kalgoorlie at the time, and they added to this by mentioning that a gold deposit called “goanna patch” located in an old paleochannel was being searched for by a prospector. The prospector could not locate the old channel, until some local TO’s told him that the creek used to flow “over there” pointing to some hundreds of metres away. He acted on that advice and found the old channel, along with the alluvial gold.
East Kimberley Aboriginals maintain that the landforms we observe now were formed by the Sky Serpent, as do Perth TO’s who reckon the Swan River was formed by the Wagyl. I was involved with a recent TO expedition near Tennant Creek and their story is that the land forms were formed by Warrangull, their name for the Sky serpent.
In each case TO’s seem to have knowledge of things dated before they were here, or before humans existed according to mainstream thinking.
In terms of the Plasma Model the sky serpent could well be a persistent Birkeland current occurring between the earth and some other body in space, and that this discharge could well have electrically machined the existing topography of the earth. Note that the various drainage patterns are similar to Lichtenberg figures produced by lightning hitting the earth.
In this view Wolfe Creek crater could be an electric discharge site – and it’s peculiar in that the crater rim is somewhat radioactive while the surrounding country rock not. And the radioactivity isn’t in the depression itself, either. We do know from plasma experiments that high energy discharges create radionucleides, so it’s plausible that this is also the case for Wolfe Creek Crater.
Pilbara TO’s relate a time when the land was soft, and this could be interpreted as a time when this area was covered by a thick soil, again predating conventional dates for Aboriginal Occupation.
I’ve started looking at other aboriginal stories and recently started on American Indian stories related to geology, and the same pattern appears, knowledge of things that they could not possibly have known in terms of the standard chronology.
So either we accept these myths as imaginative constructs, and hence maintain the standard model, or we accept the myths as having some accuracy and then that requires questioning the standard model, or questioning why Lyell did when he wrote his Principles.
I think a good case could be made to consider Aboriginal myths as having an historical basis and it’s our science that has ended up in an intellectual cul de sac.
I should add that many of the Bradshaw paintings, especially those showing “spacemen or aliens” are better explained as analogs of plasma effects observed from some sort of plasma focus device observed in the sky.
cohenite – you don’t understand what correlation is, or how to calculate it. Your graph shows us nothing about correlations. There is a high degree of correlation between CO2 and temperature over the period you plot. You can see that here
Thanks for that Louis, could I have your permission to print your response and use it with my class? Also, WRT the Bradshaw paintings, are they the ones with the black faces and arcs or rainbows around the heads? I experienced an interesting phenomenon some years back on my property. I was up at sunrise one morning late spring or early summer and there was still some moisture in the air. I noticed my shadow which was about 15-20 m long and had a perfect little rainbow going around my head from shoulder to shoulder. I instantly thought of the Aboriginal paintings that were similar and wondered if this effect was the inspiration for them.
Derek,
You have my permission to print anything I write here or elsewhere for your classes. Probably just as easy to Google my name and follow the links therefrom.
The Bradshaws are quite interesting – separate to those Wodgina paintings which you relate to your own experience. Those are not Bradshaws however, as those are limited to stick figures and other unusual portrayals of observations.
The Bradshaws are part of the siliceous patina covering the rock faces and predate the Aboriginals who painted over them – TO’s call them rubbish paintings. By part of the patina I mean that initially the painters would have sketched their observations using whatever they available – ochre perhaps – after which an intense surficial silicification event occurred in Northern Australia – it’s quite pervasive and a bit of a geological enigma. No one really knows how it’s formed though my wanderings around the King George River in the Norther Eastern Kimberley pointed to a siliceous-cherty layer following the drainage contours could be observed, following some sort of ancient water level.
Detail mapping on this scale is not done and it’s only we diamond explorers who visit these regions – for pretty mundane geological reasons.
You might also look at the petroglyph work Peratt and coworkers are involved with – they have a database of some 4 million locations world-wide, and most of them were carved by people who were watching a very persistent auroral phenomena at the South Pole during neolithic times. Some at Easter Island did no fit this and seemed to focus on a different phenomena that the latest THEMIS mission data are picking up – flux-tube events in the northern hemisphere.
It’s very interesting material and sheds further light on what happened ~10,000 years ago. I think the TPOD series might have produced a couple of articles on them.
I’m in the field from 12th October to 1 November, with basic internet access.
I should add that many of the Bradshaw paintings, especially those showing “spacemen or aliens” are better explained as analogs of plasma effects observed from some sort of plasma focus device observed in the sky.
and all of this posted on a “science blog”. great.
cohenite – you don’t understand what correlation is, or how to calculate it. Your graph shows us nothing about correlations. There is a high degree of correlation between CO2 and temperature over the period you plot. You can see that here
correlations is not the only thing, that cohenite does not understand.
he also is an expert cherry picker, as demonstrated by the grpahs. (all trends start in a maximum and end in a minimum…)
he just ignores the inconvenient upward trend over the whole thing….
Derek,
Answering your question specifically, those are the Wodgina paintings having heads surrounded haloes with spokes atop of a long linear body. I think one of Peratt’s papers on petroglyphs might show this and would be a good project for your students to do. Vis get a collection of the Peratt Plasma instabilities and see how well they match the petroglyphs.
Peratt’s papers are listed in his “near earth” section. http://plasmascience.net/tpu/NearEarth.html
Also Don Scott’s book. The Electric Sky” is written for the layperson, and an excellent addition to Lerner’s seminal text of 1992.
I have copies of those books and could let you have them gratis so as to minimise purchasing costs.
Drop me a line at lhissink usual symbol fgservices.biz
Sod: you scribble: “I should add that many of the Bradshaw paintings, especially those showing “spacemen or aliens” are better explained as analogs of plasma effects observed from some sort of plasma focus device observed in the sky.
and all of this posted on a “science blog”. great.”
Which tells us you have some difficulty identifying science from pseudoscience and bovinious excrementii.
IOW you are an idiot.
Thanks Louis.
Thanks for the offer Louis but I have a policy of paying for things that I want. I’ve checked out a couple of sites for the book already and “Seeing Red” also looks good so I’ll probably get that too.
If you meant multiple copies of the book for my class to use, that’s very generous but most wouldn’t read it anyway(it is a book after all) although I have one y11 physics student who would lap it up. I’ll just lend him mine after I’ve read it.
Cheers.
Derek,
Ok, you have it sorted.
Rattle the cage whenever, then.
So RW, where did you pilfer this nonsense;
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KfE5s-4q1s4/ScLVic4P0hI/AAAAAAAAAB0/IWBy3fClff8/s1600-h/fig4.jpg
What are the temperatures sourced from? What is the base year for determining anomalies? Are the temperatures anomalies? Your f(x) value tells us that for every additional unit of CO2 temperature consistently increases by 0.01 (x the value of the CO2) – 2.89, but how do you then explain the decline in temperature from 1940-1976 and from 1998? The R2 is ridiculously high given the down times of temperature during the 20thC and how can you generate an R2 with temperature anomalies and absolute values for CO2?
What is the base year for determining anomalies?
this does not matter at all.
Are the temperatures anomalies?
obviously yes.
The R2 is ridiculously high given the down times of temperature during the 20thC
the R² number is just calculated. the ups and downs are already factored into that number. you really don t have the slightest clue about correlation, do you?
and how can you generate an R2 with temperature anomalies and absolute values for CO2?
ouch. the absolute value has absolutely no impact on the R² value. (try it in excel or calc: 1; 2; 3… vs 101; 102; 103… you really don t have the slightest clue about correlation, do you?
sod, you have no idea period and I can’t be bothered going into it except you haven’t answered the question:
Your f(x) value tells us that for every additional unit of CO2 temperature consistently increases by 0.01 (x the value of the CO2) – 2.89, but how do you then explain the decline in temperature from 1940-1976 and from 1998?
Which is to say there is no such correlation between Temp/CO2.
Thanks sod, valiant effort but if we ever doubted that cohenite is a boneheaded idiot then that doubt has been resoundingly removed.
“Your f(x) value tells us that for every additional unit of CO2 temperature consistently increases by 0.01 (x the value of the CO2) – 2.89”
No, it doesn’t tell us that. You really have not the faintest idea what ‘correlation’ means. It becomes clear that this is only a minuscule part of the basic knowledge that you were too stupid to ever pick up.
Here’s a little challenge for you, cohenite. Will you pass or will you fail? I, for one, have no doubt about the outcome. Maybe you would like to prove me wrong though. The challenge is this: get temperatures from GISS or HadCRUT. Normalise them to whatever period you like. Get atmospheric CO2 values, both directly measured data (starts in 1959) and ice core data for previous years. Open Excel – it’s designed for morons so you shouldn’t have any problems. Plot temperature against CO2. Get the program to fit a line and print the equation and an R²value. Tell us what they are.
RW,
Obviously you never studied linear algebra. Not luke under a more offensive personna?
Oh dear, RW has slipped into his Deltoid dress and got all catty; RW you must be exhausted from all your metaphoring with $10s and bath-tubs and cookies; R2 is a measure of the predictive correlation between 2 variables; with CO2 allegedly the determining variable; ‘your’ graph shows that a unit movement in CO2 has a 78% probability of successfully predicting a movement in temperature, the dependent variable; that predictive capacity is quantified at f(x) = 0.01x – 2.89.
The problem with that and base period anomalies in general is that there was a step in the temperature at 1976; this is uncontroversial unless you are a Deltoid cross-dresser; that step is responsible for most of the temperature increase over the 20thC; base periods are usually either from 1961-90 or in the case of GISS from 1951-80; regardless, anomalies aren’t showing a trend they are merely averaging the step; the GISS base acerbates this by having a preponderance of the cooler years of the 1940-76 -PDO in its average; this has 2 effects; firstly, it makes the temperature gradient post 1976 falsely greater and the post 1976 gradient falsely less; any correlation between CO2 and temperature must take into account the fact the temperature basically increased between 1975-1977; the R2 based on the increase in CO2 between 1975 and 1977 and the temperature step would be high but meaninglessly so; R2 based on the 20thC increase in CO2 and temperature movement over the whole 20thC would be vanishingly small if due consideeration is given to the step.
Now, if we can be serious for a moment RW, tell me, do you think you should wear dark eye make-up with red high-heels or not?
Old SOD,
“and all of this posted on a “science blog”. great.”
and when exactly, does the new paradigm become acceptable to discuss openly??
You show how well you fit at Open Mind!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Cohenite,
RW strikes me as a black strappy stiletto type!!
For the crew that is stuck in consensus, how about the possibility that dark matter doesn’t exist? That is, it turns out to have been made up cause the BB physics just doesn’t work!!
Can’t convince you the BB stuff isn’t real, but here’s a linky on the dark matter fantasy:
http://www.physorg.com/news174056210.html
kuhnkat; if he is true to the sustainable/AGW cause he may be a nudist; I would expect nothing less of him; but he really needs to understand his graphs and equations; f(x) = 0.01x – 2.89 as far as I can tell means, as I said, that f(x), the y axis, temperature is determined by 0.01x[value of x axis, CO2] – 2.89; and what’s with the 2.89; isn’t that the y axis intercept point? If so, I can see that happening in the linear trend. Must be some more of that virtual reality.
Cohenite
RW maintains he does science professionally – but I take that to be science-fiction since he seems to be somewhat challenged in the linear equation area. Probably because he knows how to use Excel spreadsheets with their inbuilt regression functions that he, from personal experience, maintains even morons can use. It’s much like the use of a calculator these days without understanding the logic behind counting, or trigonometry. It’s how post-modernists do science, but I would not elevate it to pseudoscience though.
That said your understanding of the linear equation is correct and -2.89 is the value of f(x) when x=0, the y axis intercept.
kuhnkat – hmm – the real shock will be when they discover dark matter is actually electricity.
That’s right Louis; and I should have said I CAN’T see that happening in the linear trend depicted in RW’s graph; here is a more realistic graph of the relationship between temperature and CO2;
http://brneurosci.org/temperatures6.png
Cohenite
Heh heh, for a legal eagle you are good but don’t assume Lyellian aspirations :-).
I don’t know whether CS CC’d re the NGER thingy but I have problems with a government bureaucracy being set up before the parliamentary approval is obtained. What intrigues me is the fact that the Coalition enacted the NGER act which was proclaimed 29th Sept. 2007. It’s the regulatory basis for the impending ETS legislation, and the NGER gets in effect next month.
It starts to explain Luke and SJT’s arrogance here.
And from reading the various climate sceptic sites I start to worry about those as well, since all the effort is directed to the science underpinning AGW when they should be criticising the politics of the AGW agenda. That they don’t could be explained by the fact many scientists are thralled by socialist ideas – Einstein was one – hence the inability of the sceptics to get traction countering AGW science; but it has nothing to do with the science, and hence from using the ploy of focussing on the science by distractions, such as this blog, we are forced to expend unnecessary energy countering phantoms, than the real enemy, the Fabians.
Except I made one classic error – that of attributing too much intelligence to our adversaries – I haven’t a plan B for coping with stupidity. That is now being worked on.
🙂
Louis, the NGER is just the start; businesses of all sizes are not going to know what hit them; the initial cost will be up to 5% of TO; simply to calculate GH emissions and establish internal regulatory mechanisms to satisfy the mitigation requirements of the Act; it will enlarge the bureaucracy and bloat employment with non-productive workers; for those who are interested the act is here;
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/management.nsf/lookupindexpagesbyid/IP200733347?OpenDocument
Cohenite,
This increase in the number of public servants to administer CO2 regulation will increase the burden on private citizens even further.
They are idiots.
Decreasing the tax basis by shifting employment from the private sector to the public has only one consequence – less tax.
As they don’t understand this, I dread the future under our present government.
cohenite,
Thanks for the link, from what I read in the short time since downloaded, it will be an onerous task to comply with the act, but the limits for compliance at the moment are reasonably high, unless I’m mistaken.
Marcus
The limits for compliance are high, but who sets those?
Once an Act passes the Parliament is one matter, regulating its implementation another, and changes to its regulations don’t need parliamentary assent.
What a surprise! cohenite flunked the test.
Let’s look at what else you failed on:
” ‘your’ graph shows that a unit movement in CO2 has a 78% probability of successfully predicting a movement in temperature, the dependent variable; that predictive capacity is quantified at f(x) = 0.01x – 2.89.”
No, it doesn’t. If it did, 78% of the points would lie on the line. You simply don’t understand what “correlation” means. Please go away and learn something.
“The problem with that and base period anomalies in general is that there was a step in the temperature at 1976”
Irrelevant.
“that step is responsible for most of the temperature increase over the 20thC”
Did you ever look at any of the data? This is nonsense.
“anomalies aren’t showing a trend they are merely averaging the step”
You don’t understand what anomalies are. They are not averaging anything. Plot absolute temperatures if you like; nothing changes.
“the GISS base acerbates this by having a preponderance of the cooler years of the 1940-76 -PDO in its average; this has 2 effects; firstly, it makes the temperature gradient post 1976 falsely greater and the post 1976 gradient falsely less”
No matter what you calculate your anomalies relative to, the gradient remains exactly the same. How can you be so stupid as to not know this? It’s really basic stuff that 12 year olds can grasp quickly and easily. I think even 6 year olds could work out that the gradient certainly doesn’t become both greater and less at the same time.
“any correlation between CO2 and temperature must take into account the fact the temperature basically increased between 1975-1977”
The correlation calculation takes all data into account. Once again you demonstrate that you don’t have the faintest idea what “correlation” means.
“the R2 based on the increase in CO2 between 1975 and 1977 and the temperature step would be high but meaninglessly so; R2 based on the 20thC increase in CO2 and temperature movement over the whole 20thC would be vanishingly small if due consideeration is given to the step.”
You do seem to be living in some fantasy world where the temperature before 1975 was x, and the temperature after was x+Δx. In that world, the correlation between CO2 and temperature would probably be small. In the real world, as shown in the graph which you could very easily reproduce, if only you weren’t too stupid to understand how it was made, there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, and no “step” is observed in 1975-1977.
Now, if you’re not too distracted by your fantasies about men in dresses, how about you reproduce the graph as I instructed, and tell us what equation you get?
i am really astonished by you “sceptics”.
Cohenite made a claim:
Ferdinand; normally I wouldn’t go to such trouble, certainly not for a troll like RW, but you are a reasonable gent; the below linear trends of temperature clearly show no correlation with CO2 levels; they do however show a close correlation with ENSO;
the obvious problem is, that what he showed did not include any information about correlation at all.
so RW posted a link, that shows a very good correlation between CO2 and temperature over the period. (notice how he DID show a correlation.
ohenite – you don’t understand what correlation is, or how to calculate it. Your graph shows us nothing about correlations. There is a high degree of correlation between CO2 and temperature over the period you plot. You can see that here
afterwards, cohenite and Louis made multiple comments, without (again) showing any correlation at all.
cohenite made multiple false assumptions (for example that the correlation is dependent on the base period, or that one can t get a correlation between anomalies and absolute values. he simply ignored my comment, when i pointed that out.
f(x) = 0.01x – 2.89 as far as I can tell means, as I said, that f(x), the y axis, temperature is determined by 0.01x[value of x axis, CO2] – 2.89; and what’s with the 2.89; isn’t that the y axis intercept point? If so, I can see that happening in the linear trend. Must be some more of that virtual reality.
it is the best linear regression over this data. it describes the period of the data range. the y-axis intercept point is irrelevant. (in contrast to the R² value, it does depend on absolute or anomalies)
you made claims about correlations. you were shown a graph. the R² value is incredibly high. there is nothing virtual about this.
kuhnkat – hmm – the real shock will be when they discover dark matter is actually electricity.
this is totally absurd. Louis does not know what a correlation is, but makes wild claims about the universe.
Louis, the NGER is just the start; businesses of all sizes are not going to know what hit them; the initial cost will be up to 5% of TO;
cohenite doesn t know what a correlation is, but he is predicting the costs of things. astonishing.
sod, RW, little will: 3 stooges: correlation 100%.
RW is still in his angry drag outfit and fulminates: ” If it did, 78% of the points would lie on the line”; actually brainiac, 88% of the points would lie on the line since the correlation coefficient, r, is 0.8832. RW pouts and disdainfully continues: ” No matter what you calculate your anomalies relative to, the gradient remains exactly the same.” No, as Figure 1a here shows:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1650
No Mardi Gras for RW this year.
cohenite, you exceed yourself! You fail to understand your very own statement. And then you fail to understand a figure in a paper on which you are a co-author. Astonishing! The baseline of the anomaly makes absolutely no difference to any trends. If you want to prove that it does, simply do this: get hold of any temperature data that you like, and calculate a trend for any period you like. Now, recalculate the anomalies relative to any period you like. Recalculate the trend. Compare to your first answer. Is it a) higher, b) lower, or c) exactly the same?
No doubt you will fail to complete this very simple exercise just as you failed the last one. Have you suffered some kind of head injury at some point, or were you born this way? I’m really not sure whether to pity you or despise someone with such a pathetic lack of intellect combined with such a big mouth.
How about we all take a breather and find something non-combative to talk about for just 5 minutes.
Hey, does anyone here read comics?
Why Derek, I love comics; the X-Men alternate universe cross-over is perhaps one of the best of the modern era; RW was a minor mutant in it; his power was causing nausea in his victims.
Anyway, RW is quite fetching today in a tight-fitting vinyl mini-skirt of rain-forest green with a desert ochre belt of new-born lamb leather to high-light the sequin-festooned velvet bodice; he looks devine; pity about the blood-shot eyes and the sight spittle around the lips. Also a pity about the rubbish he keeps spouting:
“The baseline of the anomaly makes absolutely no difference to any trends. If you want to prove that it does, simply do this: get hold of any temperature data that you like, and calculate a trend for any period you like. Now, recalculate the anomalies relative to any period you like. Recalculate the trend. Compare to your first answer. Is it a) higher, b) lower, or c) exactly the same?”
This is about as relevant as algore at a Mensa meeting; the point I’m trying to get across RW, is that the linear trend is not the best fit for the 20thC temperature history; and base periods do give a false trend for that reason; your argument/hissy-fit is identical to the line of [il]logic used by these guys:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf
The Null Hypothesis of the paper is that there will be an “equal percentage of statistically significant positive and negative trends” [p6]. This is high order virtual reality; the concept of the 100 year flood explains why. Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] climate phases have greater probability of floods during a negative phase during which time [about 30 years] there may be several 1 in 100 year floods. During the positive, El Nino dominated PDO phase there will most likely be no 1 in 100 year flood.
The same principle applies to temperature. Positive PDOs will have increasing temperature trends and vice-versa for negative PDOs. The paper doesn’t consider ENSO at all apart from an admission that it is not modeled well [p6]. Table 1 shows more positive temperature trends in the 20thC. This was due to positive PDO dominance not, as the paper claims, AGW. Still, it’s a great title.
Go back to Figure 1(a) from the previous link RW; there is even a green line representing the trend from anomalies; this is compared to the reality of the step in temperature and the real ‘trend’; is there any difference between the 2? If there is a step is the linear trend a fair way of showing it? Silly, asking such a fair-minded ingenue as yourself that question.
You’re really getting into your transvestite fantasy aren’t you?
If all you want to say that a linear fit is not realistic, then why the fuck are you banging on about anomalies? They have no bearing whatsoever on trends or fits. Choice of base period can never under any circumstances change the trend. Your continuing failure to understand this is truly pitiable. Seriously, what brain injury did you suffer that makes you this way?
Cohenite, if you are referring to the now classic “Age of Apocalypse” maxi-series, that’s my favorite as well.
There is an image of Jamie Madrox in a nappy with a slack jaw and drooling that comes to mind when reading one of your previous comments.
If anyone wants to see some of the prehistoric art that Louis mentioned, here’s a link.
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/bradshaws/gallery.php
An abandoned wasp nest that partially covers one of the paintings has been dated at 17000 years.
Yes Derek, drooling with a slack jaw in a nappy is the complete package but who was the guy in a wheel chair who put delusions into people’s minds?
RW, no need to be crude although that’s about all you’ve got left; let’s go back to basics; an anomaly is defined by your mentor eli as:
“Groups that compile global temperature anomaly data first find an average value across a region for some climatologically relevant period, generally 30 years) Monthly temperatures anomalies are calculated as the difference between the monthly temperature and the average temperature for the base period”
The same can be done with an annual mean of the monthly amounts and of course we can do exotic things like TOD variations but let’s stick to annual means; so you have your average over the selected 30 year period and then you can generate anomalies, -ve and +ve for a wider selected period. But like I said if your 30 year base period is in a colder period like GISS predominantly is then the warmer period after the cold base period is going to look even warmer because of the base period effect; the trend generated by the warmer period before the base period will have that trend flattened because the cold part of the base period will reduce the trend rate; the upshot is a trend which is being dragged up by the end, by its bootlaces. Anyway you say:
“Choice of base period can never under any circumstances change the trend.”
How do you explain this then;
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2010/plot/none
Larry
Seems they used thermoluminescence to date the wasp nest but that raises a problem since this method fills the gap between carbon dating and Potassium-Argon dating, 40,000 – 200,000 years, so 17,000 years becomes “interesting”.
Thermoluminescence dating
Thermoluminescence dating is very useful for determining the age of pottery. Electrons from quartz and other minerals in the pottery clay are bumped out of their normal positions (ground state) when the clay is exposed to radiation. This radiation may come from radioactive substances such as uranium, present in the clay or burial medium, or from cosmic radiation. When the ceramic is heated to a very high temperature (over 932°F [500°C]), these electrons fall back to the ground state, emitting light in the process and resetting the “clock” to zero. The longer the exposure to the radiation, the more electrons that are bumped into an excited state, and the more light that is emitted upon heating. The process of displacing electrons begins again after the object cools. Scientists can determine how many years have passed since a ceramic was fired by heating it in the laboratory and measuring how much light is given off. Thermoluminescence dating has the advantage of covering the time interval between radiocarbon and potassium-argon dating, or 40,000–200,000 years. In addition, it can be used to date materials that cannot be dated with these other two methods.
Read more: http://science.jrank.org/pages/1952/Dating-Techniques-Thermoluminescence-dating.html#ixzz0TarOwiZQ
SOD
“kuhnkat – hmm – the real shock will be when they discover dark matter is actually electricity.
this is totally absurd. Louis does not know what a correlation is, but makes wild claims about the universe.”
Oh I wonder then what my MSc dissertation titled “A statistical analysis of the geochemistry of the Juan Main Ore shoot At Kambalda, Western Australia”, could mean.
I do know that you just beat SJT for excellence in posting non sequiturs.
And my wild claims are not wild – it’s the foundation of the Plasma Model which is an established line of scientific inquiry set up by the IEEE.
As most of us here love repeating, “Sod off”, Sod.
Explain this Cohenite.
1998 to 1998
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1988/to:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1988/to:1998/plot/gistemp/from:1988/to:1998/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1988/to:1998
Explain this Cohenite.
1988 to 1998
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1988/to:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1988/to:1998/plot/gistemp/from:1988/to:1998/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1988/to:1998
Looks flat too.
combine the two decades and
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1988/to:2008/trend/plot/uah/from:1988/to:2008/plot/gistemp/from:1988/to:2008/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1988/to:2008
Bingo.
This decade is consistently warmer than the previous, which is warmer than the decade before that, and the one before that.
SJT:
1998 to 1998 – tsk tsk, but changing the variables to generate any sort of trend points to one fact – it’s not robust and highly sensitive to changes small changes in assumptions. It means the point being made is specious. It actually represents the behaviour of random data, come to think of it. It’s statistical noise SJT, not a real trend.
Oh, you are a goose, little will; how many tries did it take you before you came up with a similar trend between GISS and UAH? And the 2 dates 1988 and 1998 have no climatic significance little will; I’ve told you the crucial dates are 1976 and 1998;
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1976/to:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1976/to:1998/plot/gistemp/from:1976/to:1998/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1976/to:1998
Oh, you are a goose, little will; how many tries did it take you before you came up with a similar trend between GISS and UAH? And the 2 dates 1988 and 1998 have no climatic significance little will; I’ve told you the crucial dates are 1976 and 1998;
LOL. Cherry picking at it’s best.
SJT,
thanks for showing one reason why 1998 is considered a STEP CHANGE which has nothing to do with AGW!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Old SOD,
Yes, I realise that not all new theories are correct.
You need to realise that ALL CONSENSUS science is proven wrong eventually!!!
So, what is consensus science at the current time? Big Bang, Evolution, and AGW!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
SJT,
What is that saying about a bridge too far??
“This decade is consistently warmer than the previous, which is warmer than the decade before that, and the one before that.”
So, you believe that the dinosaurs lived in a colder climate than modern????
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
We can just go back to the 1930-40’s to disprove that sloppy statement!!
Louis Hissink,
“kuhnkat – hmm – the real shock will be when they discover dark matter is actually electricity.”
SHHHHHH. I was trying to ease them into it!!
How about when they finally realise that the effects of high level electrical discharges invalidates their isotope dating systems??!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
kuhnkat,
Isotope dating systems indeed, and here’s another potential embarrassment for them – absolute time using atomic clocks – note that a second is defined by a particular frequency of the caesium atomic state, or in the SI unit “the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.[1]”
And what is a period? And what it that based on. Bit of circular reasoning being applied here.
And of course they have noticed the Earth is slowing down in revolutions around its axis, so hence the need for a more accurate time basis. Earth slowing down, well I never, I thought that isn’t possible under Newtonian physics.
Ahem.
So, what is consensus science at the current time? Big Bang, Evolution, and AGW!!!
You don’t believe in evolution?
Evolution is Creationism expanded over a long period of time. Both end up with homo sapiens at the top of the tree.
I would say that the standard Darwinian idea of adaptation via random chance mutation, which is the consensus view, can not stand up to logic. Even Gould and Eldrich’s punctuated equilibrium model doesn’t give a mechanism for evolution, it only gives a possible reason.
I think Jennifer will be glad she has taken a break.
But like I said if your 30 year base period is in a colder period like GISS predominantly is then the warmer period after the cold base period is going to look even warmer because of the base period effect; the trend generated by the warmer period before the base period will have that trend flattened because the cold part of the base period will reduce the trend rate; the upshot is a trend which is being dragged up by the end, by its bootlaces. Anyway you say:
cohenite, you posted again, and again you failed to show us any correlation.
different base periods do not influence a correlation.
your claims about GISS and Hadcrut data are false as well. GISS does include the arctic.
the base period leads to minor confusion, when comparing two different datsets. again: it does not matter for correlation!
I’ve told you the crucial dates are 1976 and 1998;
your “step theory” is utterly rubbish. a statistical analysis can provide a reason, to investigate different periods seperately. but it does not allow you, to ignore everything that we know about climate!
that statistcis identify a break point, does not make 11 year trends in climate relevant.
if your tool shows, that all the warming of the 20th century happened in 1976, then you must explain the physical mechanism, that can make that happen.
real science wont help you here. but you can fall back on the Louis stuff: perhaps a invisible plasma eruption? cosmic electric rays?
Come on SJT, don’t tell me you’re not prepared to question any current science paradigms. There must be something you have doubts about.
Lyall Watson writing in his various Super Nature books etc pointed to some serious problems facing evolution – one example was the wasp that uses a poisonous spider as a surrogate for her eggs – the wasp has only one chance to immobilise the spider, and if she fails, she is dead. There is no possibility of the wasp learning from experience to adapt from this scenario – it’s sufficient in itself to falsify the theory, but what do we replace it with?
I lean to David Bohm’s idea of an implicate order underpinning physical reality and in my view, causes life forms to appear spontaneously that are compatible with the prevailing physical conditions.
I base this on some observations from the field. A decade ago I was working for a diamond mining company in the East Kimberley and a series of sampling costeans were dug into alluvial flats to test the diamond bearing gravels. These gravels are Quaternary in age. One wet season passed and on return the camp caretaker informed us that magically fish appeared in the costeans. Standard exploration is that overflying birds poo into the water bodies depositing fish eggs of fish they just ate; all rather Lyellian.
Fish eggs in the buried gravels? How would those survive.
If this is strange consider the next fact – another company mined some small kimberlite pipes in the Proterozoic sandstones of the north east Kimberley, and one wet season later, fish in the water filling the main pit. These pits were in topographic uplands, unconnected to any existing drainage system, and located in sandstones dated 1100 Ma. So how did modern bream appear in the water – another Lyellian case of birds pooing overhead?
Modern day bream eggs in 1100Ma sands?
Practical joke? Not really, no one in their right mind would venture in those places during the wet – foot travel is impossible and flying with a chopper fraught with danger from the unpredictable electrical storms typical for the wet season.
It’s these things which some of us in the exploration observe, and keep quiet about since the usual reaction is to force valium down our throats and put to rest in a less challenging environment.
My guess is that the fish appear spontaneously out of the Bohmian implicate order. How you go about testing that is another matter entirely.
SOD: “Real science wont help you here. but you can fall back on the Louis stuff: perhaps a invisible plasma eruption? cosmic electric rays?”
Invisble plasma eruptions are coronal mass ejections.
Cosmic electric rays – well mainstream calls them cosmic rays – I would call them electric currents.
You really are making a poor show of ridiculing the PLasma Model – might be an idea for you to study up on it before writing anymore school boy howlers here.
Standard exploration? How about standard explanation. I must watch Safari’s spell checker more closely
Derek,
“Come on SJT, don’t tell me you’re not prepared to question any current science paradigms. There must be something you have doubts about.”
Yes he does – my sanity I suspect 🙂 hah hah hah
sod and little will; after repeatedly providing you with peer reviewed literature confirming the signifiance of the 1976-77 and 1997-8 periods you still complain about it being just a statistical oddity without climate relevance; I can only conclude you either can’t read or are being deliberately obtuse; so, for the last time, pages 8-9 of this;
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.1650v3.pdf
Louis, while I don’t doubt for a second the things you’ve seen,you will perhaps forgive me if I don’t embrace David Bohm’s ideas just yet. I have an imaginary shelf in the back of my mind where inexplicable things go to await some new revelation and that’s where this information is going.
By the way, who else thinks that guy that disappeared while kayaking to N.Z. was taken by a colossal squid?
Derek,
I’m not comfortable with it either but it’s a working hypothesis – something I muse over from time to time in light of the passage of time. I’ve also got Bohm’s book Quantum Mechanics and my brain congeals when I read it. The ideas are discussed in Michael Talbot’s book The Holographic Universe, by the way.
I’ve got more important things to think about in any case but in terms of evolution if Darwin’s theory doesn’t hold, then what’s left.
The way I see it Darwinian evolution is insufficient because it is so slow and to me, evolution is clearly moving at break neck speed.This suggests that there is some genetic imperative that causes organisms to favorably adapt in opportunistic ways when new niches open up. This of course doesn’t explain your wasp or any of the many similar examples seen in BBC docco’s.e.g. plants that synthesize insect pheromones. So perhaps it’s like Wong’s ETS, probably better to have no working theory at the moment than a bad one.
Cohenite
Your appeal to SJT and SOD to actually familiarise themselves with facts will fall on deaf ears. Remember SJT is a computer programmer (I suspect in the Long Paddock division in the QLD climate department – he dropped enough Freudian slips over the time confirming it, along with Luke, who I recall was also slightly Freudian when Jennifer moved from QLD to NSW a couple of years back), and will not understand what you and David published.
SOD seems an earthy type of Klutz – probably like RW who knows how to manipulate Excel but remains clueless about how the various functions are derived. Maths at school these days is about learning the visual clues to enable proficiency in the pressing of calculator buttons. I used to have to use Chambers 7 figure logarithm tables when I studied surveying during the late 1960’s at Ultimo Tech under Terry Tobin.
Derek,
But the important point concerning the development of evolutionary theory is that it was a mechanical means by which to explain the Lyellian removed biblical creation – recall Darwin’s initial title, “The Origin of Species and the Descent of Man”, or least that was what my well thumbed edition was. It was at the height of the British Empire as well which the sun never set over. Remember that Lyell was a devout Scottish Methodist though Darwin apparently become disenchanted with theology during his latter years.
It was, for it’s time, an improvement on the previous idea, but in essence actually stretched it over an arbitrary long period of time.
It assumes that there was a start to things, when available evidence suggests nothing of the kind. I don’t have any problems with the Earth being formed at some instant in time, since that seems to be the order of things in the cosmos, but the cosmos starting?
I’ve also just realised that my geological understanding of geological evolution might be as flawed – despite my early training under professional sedimentary geologists in the NSW Geological Survey. The geological model is basically Darwinian, that the Earth, over time, “evolved”. Well, yes but then concluding that two fossiliferous strata, one on top of the other, show the progression of evolution from the fossils in the lower stratum, to the form of the fossil in the upper stratum seems a logical fallacy.
It’s much like arguing that a deep sea sediment containing plankton overlain by a more recent deposit containing human remains as fossils, that humans then evolved from plankton, based on the law of superposition of strata. If that idea is accepted, however, then the intermediate stages between the earlier plankton and later humans, missing in the stratigraphical record, are then explained as occurring in the sedimentary lacunae or “gaps”. That’s how Lyell chose to explain things after Darwin published his ideas. Lyell was under no circumstances and empiricist. (Underpinning this line of thinking is the belief of a Creation, when the clock started ticking).
Richard Milton created a bit of a firestorm with his books questioning all this, so I’ll have to refresh my memory on what he wrote on this topic as the last time I read his views, new facts have caused me to change my mind on some aspects.
That’s what I like about science – new data always challenge preconceptions.
“That’s what I like about science – new data always challenge preconceptions”
Good stuff Louis; a stark contrast to the petty egotism of AGW and the science is settled mantra
Cohenite,
Yes, it’s the approach we also use in mineral exploration – and causing us to revisit previous explorations with new data or techniques.
But it’s hard dealing with fossilised intellects like Luke etc – even harder with the little peoples.
Cohenite,
One other fact just occurred to me – each and every researcher assigned to climate science is on the government payroll.
So the argument is not so much about science, as about opposing the state and it’s ever increasing domination of our lives.
Slaves tend to be happy with their lot in life provided they are fed and looked after, but expose them to uncertainty, as we are doing as sceptics, then the reaction is predictable.
“That’s what I like about science – new data always challenge preconceptions”
In my first year of biology at uni, one of my lecturers said that 70% of what we were taught that year would be wrong by the time we got into 3rd year. I think that was a healthy perspective to have.
That’s the difference between the physical sciences, and the social ones – 🙂 If the latter could be described as a science in the first instant.
I also remember a lecture on one of the early climate models(around 1992) that had the earth divided into grids the size of Victoria with data averaged over the whole grid. This meant that the whole of Victoria got an even cover of 1cm of snow. It’s funny how the expected outcomes of the models have always been in the same direction, they just anticipate the fine detail to improve over the years.
“that had the earth divided into grids the size of Victoria with data averaged over the whole grid”
Well that was the first error they made – averaging readings over a hypothetical grid – the classic case of aggregating intensive variables on a non physical basis.
The proper procedure would be to assign an area of influence to the data point, then weighting that data point, the intensive variable, whatever it was, with the assigned area, adding the weighted points in toto and then dividing by the total area to get the final mean.
No wonder they get warming from the models when the fundamentals are not done correctly.
I doubt, even at this advanced state of the AGW debate, that the climate scientists actually understand the difference between intensive and extensive variables.
I’m off from here for a few weeks – in the bush till 1 november trying to make shareholders happy by finding mines.
Louis
you have no idea at all, you are just making up **** without ever bothering to find out the first thing about what they are doing with models, and how they work.
Here is the source code for one.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/
knock yourself out.
Good luck Louis with the mines!
sod and little will; after repeatedly providing you with peer reviewed literature confirming the signifiance of the 1976-77 and 1997-8 periods you still complain about it being just a statistical oddity without climate relevance; I can only conclude you either can’t read or are being deliberately obtuse; so, for the last time, pages 8-9 of this;
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.1650v3.pdf
look cohenite, you made a lot of false claims about correlations now. but you have not shown us a single result for a correlation so far.
why don t you simply show us, how anomalies data show a different result for a correlation, when different base periods are used?
too difficult for you?
or will you finally admit that you were wrong?
—-
talking about the article: you have lik#nked it about 100 times now. i have looked at it every time. it doesn t get better.
so again: (you have never replied to my critisism so far!!!)
a statistical break point test does NOT allow you to cherry pick periods that are too short for climate.
the statistical break point test does not allow you to make conclusions (a temperature step) that can NOT be explained by physics.
ps: the later change is identified to be in 1997. 1998 remains a cherry pick, even using your article!
The proper procedure would be to assign an area of influence to the data point, then weighting that data point, the intensive variable, whatever it was, with the assigned area, adding the weighted points in toto and then dividing by the total area to get the final mean.
Louis never took a look at the way, the grid temperature is calculated.
a description can be found here:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19990042165_1999050125.pdf
most people would take a lok at stuff, before they complain about it. most people would just expect that specialists get things right, before they make their own amateurish comments.
not Louis.
Sod wrote:
Most people would expect that when someone makes a claim based on a computer model, the model has been verified and validated (ie, the models have been formally tested for errors and formally tested for, and shown to produce, accurate predictions). Despite repeated requests (both here and elsewhere), no-one has been able to point me to such studies, or even where they might be found.
Most people would expect that showing a trend “in the noise” is not significant. GMST changes of less than 1C are “in the noise”, because that is the resolution of the measurements taken.
Most people would expect that you would not change the methodology in mid-stream, compare new and old results and then declare “It’s worse than we thought!”. That’s what has happened with sea level, and with GMST – as your paper says quite clearly.
Most people would expect that when you use tools outside your area of specialty, that you will listen to the comments of those who specialise in the area the tools come from. Climate scientists depend heavily on stats, yet ignore statisticians complaints about their methods.
Most scientists do not generate and validate a theory based on the same data. Climate scientists do.
So I guess that climate scientists are not like “most people” and not even like “most scientists”.
YMMV
SJT,
“You don’t believe in evolution?”
Lessee, do you believe that sympathetic magic by witchdoctors work??
That is, it looks alike so it will work alike and is connected??
That is the sum total of evolution after all the ASSumptions are removed.
For example, for decades many animals that looked similar were classed as close on the ole evolution bush. After genetic research started on animals it was found that many types ASSumed to be close based on similarities of LOOKS wer NOT close at all.
In spite of this, we are still told of the evolutionary sequences based on this same ASSumption of similar LOOK making things related. Now, you would think this would have been dropped when modern animals and genetics proved that similar LOOKS could be quite different genetically. Without LOOKS, what evidence is there that any fossil is ancestor, albeit indirectly, of any other fossil???
Why, that would be NO EVIDENCE other than Assumptions.
As far as so called evolution in modern times, like those birds on a Pacific Island changing beak size, look at the dog family. They can all interbreed, yet, there is quite a range of characteristics in color, size, musculature, skeletal shape… All these differences are in the genome. As far as those Finches, the genes for different size beaks are already there and are expressed based on what birds survive to breed the most. No evolution there.
Another little issue is that virtually all fossils found would appear to indicate genes already in existent. If the earliest animals and plants already had developed genetics, where and when did genetics develop?? With the extreme complexity of genetics, and the newly found cloning and backup capabilities, about which we are still learning, the time required for random mutations to run through accidents to develop becomes ridiculously long. (as in Big Bang science age of the universe or longer)
Even Dawkins is willing to accept a designer as long as it is an Alien and not a god.
I actually went and paid money to see this movie:
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
just to watch Richard D. say that!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Old Sod:
“but it does not allow you, to ignore everything that we know about climate!”
What do we know about the climate again?? That it is random?? That it is practically chaotic??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Old Sod, sometimes you really are funny!!!
Just another of the million missing bits.
Wouldn’t matter how good the code was……..
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-10/drnl-kni100909.php
Most people would expect that showing a trend “in the noise” is not significant. GMST changes of less than 1C are “in the noise”, because that is the resolution of the measurements taken.
That is not what they are doing. You can take measurements to a whole degree, and still wind up with a valid average that is stated in less than a degree.
Neil, Louis made a false claim about the grid of models. i demonstrated that he was wrong. now you are moving the goal post.
cohenite made a false claim (base periods change correlations). we pointed out his error. now he is moving the goal post.
Most people would expect that when someone makes a claim based on a computer model, the model has been verified and validated (ie, the models have been formally tested for errors and formally tested for, and shown to produce, accurate predictions). Despite repeated requests (both here and elsewhere), no-one has been able to point me to such studies, or even where they might be found.
the basic AGW is in the physics, not the models. pure physics say, increasing CO2 will cause a rise in temperature. the models just add in other factors to give a more detailed view.
if you don t like models, stick to the physics. (and please notice that you can not use other factors either. it would just be a simple model, and you don t like models..)
the Hansen 1988 projection was pretty accurate. science has improved a lot since then.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg
Most people would expect that showing a trend “in the noise” is not significant. GMST changes of less than 1C are “in the noise”, because that is the resolution of the measurements taken.
this comment is simply uneducated. the average improves accuracy. your idea that 10 thermometers with an error range of 1°C are just as inaccurate as a single one is simply false.
please educate yourself on this subject and then come back with an argument that makes sense.
Old SOD,
“the Hansen 1988 projection was pretty accurate. science has improved a lot since then”
Do you always close your eyes when you kiss Hansen and Schmidt’s ASSignments??
That ridiculous chart of Hansens is only close if you believe we drastically REDUCED our emissions of GHG’s in 1990!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Try a smart Luke Warmer’s evaluation of it:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ordinary-eyeball-how-did-hansens-predictions-do/
Old Sod,
“this comment is simply uneducated. the average improves accuracy. your idea that 10 thermometers with an error range of 1°C are just as inaccurate as a single one is simply false.”
You sound pretty sure of yourself here, but, I am afraid we are waiting for the mathematical PROOF of your theory. tick tick tick
You sound pretty sure of yourself here, but, I am afraid we are waiting for the mathematical PROOF of your theory. tick tick tick
help yourself. start reading here:
http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/3488
or do some school level exercise:
http://www.globe.gov/sda/tg/gps_la_part1.pdf
learn how to acearge atomic clocks, to get more precise time:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070304150138AACPTkv
or get the basics from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
Sod wrote:
Oddly enough, if we stick to the physics, 2 x CO2 comes out to around 1.2C, right? IPCC says the models range between about 1.5 and 4.5 per doubling. Given that overall climate feedbacks are negative (and FYI, Gavin@RC has agreed that this is the case) and also given that the observed temperature increase (ignoring any issues with the actual measurements – and such issues do exist) seem to be what we would expect given 1.2C/doubling and measured increase in CO2, or perhaps a little less, then a couple of point arise:
1) where do such models get the “extra” from?
2) why are models that show less than the IPCC “likely” range not considered?
And from what I can see, the answers are:
1) positive feedbacks – WV and albedo.
2) confirmation bias.
And since, as Lucia has amply demonstrated, such projections (remember even IPCC won’t call them predictions) have, over the last decade or so, been shown false at the 95% CI, you can see that I am somewhat sceptical that the models are anything other than fantasy. Like Josh Halpern, I note that you do not cite a reference to show validation of any climate model, let alone verification.
By using the law and large numbers and other “tricks” (which is not meant as a derogatory point) it is possible to take a lot of measurements and using said techniques, get a more accurate representation of what you are measuring. I never claimed otherwise. There are, of course, some caveats to doing this.
The measurements must be independent. No problem there.
They must be measuring the same thing. Oops! Measuring the temperature in London is not measuring the same thing as measuring the temperature in Paris, or Moscow, or New York – we are trying to create a global temperature average, but this is not something we can actually measure, we can only measure at various points and then average.
The precision of that kind of average cannot be any better than the precision of the least precise measurement you take. I know you ae not this dumb Sod – you must be aware of this and if you are not, then perhaps it is you who needs to study sir!
Now, some pre-empting: you will no doubt want to suggest that weather is variable and harder to predict than climate. This is undoubtedly true – after all, climate is just average weather, and averages are almost always easier to predict than the “raw” data. And if this is so, then the weather may “mask” AGW during a “downtick”. Very true and no arguement from me. But I would point out that such “masking” has a flip side, as it must. If such variability can overwhelm AGW at this point, then there is reason to assume that such variability may “enhance” the AGW signal; either at some point in the future, or at some point in the past. And given the tiime scales involved, we are currently ignorant as to whether or not this has actually happened during the 20thC.
Old SOD;
From your first link:
“Averaging multiple samples to arrive at single measurement (and error) is a good way to improve the accuracy of your measurements. ”
Do you have any idea what the “and error” is all about??
” The premise of averaging is that noise and measurement errors are random, and therefore, by the Central Limit Theorem, the error will have a normal (Gaussian) distribution.”
Show us that the errors in the measurements you are dealing with are RANDOM. Oh yeah, if you could do that YOU WOULDN’T NEED TO AVERAGE!!!!
Averaging data that probably has biases leaves you with bad data that has been averaged, NOT higher accuracy.
Averages can be done of a homogeneous set. That is, what is the point of averaging the the height of men, the weight of women, and the strenght of ther offspring. When you average global temps is the temperature of theairpot at Denver, several thousand feet above sea level, really equivalent to the temperature of the airport on some Pacific Island at sea level???
Do you believe there is a hot spot and the data does not show it?? Even after we AVERAGE the data??
Basically theory is nice, BUT, it is not the same as empirical evidence. You may be closer or farther from the actual reality. You DON’T KNOW!!!
Some excellent statisticians simply state that statistics make people more sure of their results than they should be.
OLD Sod;
PS: from the last one,
Exactly what do you think the “ADJUSTMENTS” to the data do to the global AVERAGES that are computed???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Spangled Drongo:
From the link:
“We’ve shown that if all of the global modeling groups were to include some kind of nutrient dynamics, the range of model predictions would shrink because of the constraining effects of the carbon nutrient limitations, even though it’s a more complex model.”
” In this case, scientists found that the rate of climate change over the next century could be higher than previously anticipated when the requirement of plant nutrients are included in the climate model.”
Hopefully no one is surprised by this!!!
Of course, this link shows a slightly different story:
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N39/B1.php
” increased CO2 (i) enhanced crop growth for all investigated species and (ii) decreased evapotranspiration rate of the canopies resulting in higher soil moisture content (Weigel et al., 2006).” As a result, they found that “without consideration of the CO2 effect, mostly negative impacts on crop yields were simulated,” but that “considering the CO2 effect compensated the negative trend in most cases and turned yield effects to a positive impact.”
“the basic AGW is in the physics…stick to the physics”
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/optical-depth-trend-1.png
There is no AGW.
folks, you are moving the goal post again. here is what Neil said:
Most people would expect that showing a trend “in the noise” is not significant. GMST changes of less than 1C are “in the noise”, because that is the resolution of the measurements taken.
that is false. the example with multiple measurements show this. the same is true, for multiple measurements with the same instruments.
when my pool thermometer reads 25°C for 70 days and 26°C for the next 30 days, i get a meaningful trend.
——————-
ps: cohenite, i am still waiting for your correlations.
Cohenite said:
“Predictive correlation”? Erm, no.
A regression indicates the proportion of the variability in the dependent variable that may be explained by the variability in the independent variable.
Further, the explanatory/descriptive parameters (slope, intercept, R^2) are relevant only to new data whose independent variable values fall within the range described by the independent values used to derive the regression: one of the first lessons that a high school student is taught when learning about regressions is that they cannot be used to predict the path of the trajectory, or of any isolated y values, outside of the range bounded by the minimum and maximum x values used in the performance of the regression.
Regression equations (and their attendant R^2 values) are useful for things such as standard curves, which permit estimation of most likely dependent values for particular independent values within the x range of the regression. They are also handy for getting an idea of the shape of trajectories, and whether there may be a cause/effect relationship between the independent and dependent variables (one should note that ‘dependence’ in this context is not an automatic indication of cause/effect).
Regressions should not, however, be used to predict dependent variable values outside of the regression’s independent variable range. It’s not what they were designed for, and it’s not what they do.
Kuhnkat,
Just so! And as these opposing aspects aren’t well understood and probably quite debateable, how could the existing models correctly account for them.
This sort of carbon accounting [if it has any bearing] seems to have a long way yet to travel.
I feel sure that CO2 Science has a better handle on it.
It seems to me that if the science really was “settled”, then the data would be so obvious that these endless arguments about minute details would be moot. If the apparent trends rely so heavily on the copious “fiddling” that appears to be integral to the whole thing, then maybe said trends do not exist.
This of course would make sense if I actually understood what you guys were saying.
Ah, here’s BJ, bloviating up that famous creek as usual; from sod and little will’s favourite source;
“In statistics, the coefficient of determination, R2 is used in the/a context of statistical models whose main purpose is the prediction of future outcomes on the basis of other related information. It is the proportion of variability in a data set that is accounted for by the statistical model. It provides a measure of how well future outcomes are likely to be predicted by the model.”
Guess what that source is BJ; remember its all in the R2!
For pity’s sake Cohenite, read my post again. Most especially, read the penultimate paragraph.
I said nothing about “future outcomes”, except in the context of where the “future” represents time as an independent variable. In this case, regressions from times past cannot validly be used to predict future dependent variable values.
Nevertheless, I would argue that your quoted definition is not a tight one. I for one would not use it in teaching any of my undergrads. Read the last sentence in your quote, and compare with my statement that “[a coefficient of] regression indicates the proportion of the variability in the dependent variable that may be explained by the variability in the independent variable”.
Can you pick the not particularly subtle, but very important, differences? Moreover, can you discern what the implications are for using regressions?
BJ, why on Earth would you want to know anything other than the [future] proportion of the variability in the dependent variable that may be explained by the variability in the dependent variable? That’s what the R2 [model] does; what other future outcome do you think I was talking about? Why isn’t that a predictive correlation? As usual you have nitpicked yourself into the corner of infinite logical obscurity.
Furthermore BJ, this;
“one of the first lessons that a high school student is taught when learning about regressions is that they cannot be used to predict the path of the trajectory, or of any isolated y values, outside of the range bounded by the minimum and maximum x values used in the performance of the regression”
is as good a reason why the AGW alarmism about ‘tipping points’ and ‘runnaway heating’ should be treated with scorn.
Sod wrote:
Once again, I remind you that we are not measuring GMST at several diverse locations, we are measuring the actual temperature at those locations and using that data to create our GMST number. And while it’s certainly possible to state such an average with a higher resolution than the original measurements, such resolutions are not representative of our true knowledge of the average temperature, which is limited by the resolution of the our measurements! The temperature at Moscow does not help me refine the average of the temperature in Sydney, even if they show some correlation and even if it’s possible to use one to predict the other – simply because they are not measurements of the same thing.
In the context of global temperature averaging, Neil wrote:
“The precision of that kind of average cannot be any better than the precision of the least precise measurement you take.”
That’s not quite right. As you know, there are 2 types of error: methodological error and random error. Precision is about the latter. Precision is an index of how well repeated measurements of the same thing agree with one another. A fairly common measure for precision of *individual* measurements is the estimated standard deviation, or some multiple thereof.
Of course, your best estimate for the “true value” of whatever it is that you’re trying to measure takes *all* of the measurements into account–the mean, for example. If you use the mean value, then the estimated standard error of the mean (ESEM) is a good measure of precision. As you know, if you quadruple the sample size, you halve the ESEM, and double your precision. However that’s not consistent with what you said.
The whole point of temperature-averaging is to nail down surface temperature trends for the planet as a whole. Suppose that you use good sampling technique, and take 10 trillion measurements every hour. Further suppose that they all decrease (or increase) monotonically over a 20-year period. Then it would be reasonable to conclude that there’s a trend. Unfortunately, Nature has a sense of humor, and she ain’t likely to hand you the monotonic scenario on a silver platter .
Nevertheless it’s still possible to tease out trends using temperature-averaging, even though that’s distasteful to some people. In that case, you use garden-variety statistical concepts to analyze your data. But you need to be mindful about the distinction between precision and accuracy, which reflects the former as well as methodological error.
Larry Fields wrote:
Indeed. Note the fourth sentence. In this case (GMST) we are not making repeated measurements of the same thing, are we? The temperature in Moscow is not the same thing as the temperature in London or Sydney or anywhere else. Does measuring oranges tell you anything meaningful about the average size of apples? Does measuring the size of apples on your tree several weeks later help you refine the average you took earlier? In both cases the answer is a resounding “no!” because it’s not the same thing you are measuring! And while the second is somewhat more subtle, it’s definately not the same thing – although some people might believe otherwise and attempt to do this, once it’s pointed out that apples generally increease in size over several weeks, their arguement that it “matters” is hardly convincing, is it? And if we are making “corrections” to allow for the growth in between, then that would increase our uncertainty, not refine it, would it not? Yet this is what appears to be happening with GMST – we are adding orange size and correcting for growth based on estimates, not direct measurements, and coming up with numbers that certainly look impressive, but are somewhat “rubbery” and a long way from definitive. They may indeed be indicative, but are hardly what I’d call “proof”.
BJ, why on Earth would you want to know anything other than the [future] proportion of the variability in the dependent variable that may be explained by the variability in the dependent variable? That’s what the R2 [model] does; what other future outcome do you think I was talking about? Why isn’t that a predictive correlation? As usual you have nitpicked yourself into the corner of infinite logical obscurity.
logical obscurity is a pretty nice thing to mention, cohenite. here is a link that you did provide on page 2 of this discussion. as always, you cherry picked start and end date of your trends to be extreme points of the graph.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:1880/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1880/to:1910/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1910/to:1940/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1940/to:1976/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1940/to:1976/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1976/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1976/to:1998/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/to:2010
why don t you educate us: what “[future] proportion of the variability in the dependent variable” do your trend lines suggest?
and what did really happen?
ps: and i noticed that you have posted again, without bringing up any correlation or proof of your wild claim about base periods…
Indeed. Note the fourth sentence. In this case (GMST) we are not making repeated measurements of the same thing, are we? The temperature in Moscow is not the same thing as the temperature in London or Sydney or anywhere else. Does measuring oranges tell you anything meaningful about the average size of apples? Does measuring the size of apples on your tree several weeks later help you refine the average you took earlier? In both cases the answer is a resounding “no!” because it’s not the same thing you are measuring
look Neil, your original statement was simply false, it would be a good start for further discussion, if you could simply admit that.
but as Larry pointed out, basically everything that you wrote afterwards is false as well. a simple example are tests, that don t allow multiple instruments. like test crash dummies. when you want to know what will typically happen to the dummy, you will do multiple tests and (shock!!!) AVERAGE the result.
according to you, a single test gives the best result…
Indeed. Note the fourth sentence. In this case (GMST) we are not making repeated measurements of the same thing, are we? The temperature in Moscow is not the same thing as the temperature in London or Sydney or anywhere else. Does measuring oranges tell you anything meaningful about the average size of apples?
If the sun were to double it’s output, would all the temperatures at the sites you named go up? If it were to halve it’s output, would all the temperatures at the sites you named go down?
Sod wrote:
No, you are suggesting that we can average over different manufacturers cars – that we can take an average of different things and that such an average is somehow more exact. How many different ways do I have to say it – WE ARE NOT MEASURING THE SAME THING! The basic premise of the central limit theory is that you are, so you cannot apply it!
Neil,
You’re missing the point. And sod isn’t smart enough to be wrong 100% of the time.
Let’s keep our eyes on the ball. We’re interested in global surface temperature *change*. Instantaneous global average temperature is not a particularly interesting concept in its own right. It’s a red herring for those who haven’t mastered the concept of subtraction, as in T2 – T1. For rapid humongous changes–above and beyond the piddling warming phase that we experienced back in the 80s and 90s–a single well sited temperature station *may* be able to pick it up. In an extreme case, that may answer the IF question. In a less extreme case, a sample size of 1 would be grossly inadequate.
And there are the equally interesting HOW MUCH and WHERE questions. S Sweden was affected more strongly by that particular round of global warming than was Sacramento County, where I live. Warming effects appear to be partly a function of *latitude*. Ditto for cooling effects.
Having a large network of *well-sited* and well-attended temperature stations would provide much more *useful* quantitative info than a single site.
Example 1: In the short term, it could be helpful for farmers trying to grow a given cash crop in a given marginal location. In contrast, the signal from a single temperature station in that area would be useful, but much noisier.
Example 2: In the long term, such a network may give us some early warning about the next major advance of continental glaciers. Then we’d have more time to weigh the suite of available options: absorbing climate refugees from high latitudes (or shooting them as they try to cut through the barbed wire), shifting to high-yield albeit less-tasty crops in the decreased arable land, cultivating a taste for rat-burgers, and even geo-engineering.
If we bury our heads in the sand, spout pious platitudes about apples and oranges, and pretend that a sample size of 1 gives more useful information about global temperature *change* than a network of *well sited* and well attended temperature stations, we’ll be shooting ourselves in the foot.
Preemptive comment. Yes, I agree that we should get rid of the garbage-data-generating temperature stations in parking lots, adjacent to barbecue pits in public parks, in the exhaust streams of AC vents, etc.
Bernard J,
Do you ever mention this to your undergrads?
What is the current trend in the mean global temperature anomaly?
Global cooling by 0.71 deg C from 1878 to 1911, for 33 years.
Global warming by 0.53 deg C from 1911 to 1944, for 33 years.
Global cooling by 0.48 deg C from 1944 to 1976, for 32 years.
Global warming by 0.67 deg C from 1976 to 1998, for 22 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.97/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.07
No, you are suggesting that we can average over different manufacturers cars – that we can take an average of different things and that such an average is somehow more exact. How many different ways do I have to say it – WE ARE NOT MEASURING THE SAME THING! The basic premise of the central limit theory is that you are, so you cannot apply it!
you are still moving the goal post. (there was no central limit theory in your first post. it was about trends, and “resolution of the measurements”)
and “average over different manufacturers cars” is going a little too far. but yes, the next test will most likely be on the next (improved) version of the same chassis or on a different version of the car (the slighly heavier diesel version?)
the average or the trend of results will still have a meaning and will still improve the results!
in practise, you might use the saem instrument multiple times. or different instruments on slightly different objects.
on temperature, we combine those techniques, with multiple measurements with the same instrument at the same location at different times, and more emasurements with different instruments at other locations. (and some of those locations are closer together than London and Sydney..)
the Trend over the avearges of those measurements will be always better than the “resolution of the measurements”. will you finally admit that?
Cohenite.
It’s simple, really.
It is considered inappropriate to use a regression to determine dependent variable values from independent variable values that lie outside of the range of independent variable values that were used to obtain the regression equation parameters.
When time (ie, “year”) is the independent variable, parameters from a regression based on data up to the present should not be used to project into the future. A simple linear regression does not automatically, or even reliably, inform us of the proportion of the future variability in the dependent variable that may be explained by the variability in the independent* variable; and to repeat, nor should such a regression be used to predict values of the dependent variable in the future.
Common sense should tell you this. Take some simple physical facts…
Temperature is predicted to increase by a unit increment for each doubling of CO2. For a constant rate (over time) of CO2 increase, the rate of temperature increase (over the same period of time) would ‘flatten’ – that is, deviate from linearity. Currently the rate of emissions is more exponential than constant (linear), so the projected rate of temperature increase is consequently affected, and depending on the final sensitivity value it might describe a trajectory anywhere from a ‘less flat’ asymptotic path to a temporarily exponential path.
In this range of alternatives a linear future trajectory is certainly one possibility, but without knowing a priori what the sensitivity actually is, it would be rash to cavalierly assume a linear continuation: much more factoring than a mere simple regression is called for.
Additionally, there are many other factors that positively and negatively force temperature over time. These factors are both natural, and human-induced, and the latter include modifiers of emissions such as emissions control and financial crises. How are such stochastic and emergent events accounted for by a simple regression?
Actually, I would have thought that the fact that simple regressions do not reliably inform about trajectories outside of their independent variable range is a good reason why ‘tipping points’ should be treated with greater care than is afforded them by denialists, and that more careful and appropriate analyses should be used – a regression has nothing to say at all about potential future tipping points.
As to “runaway heating”, that discounted meme is just hysteria promoted by the media, or taken up the nutcase fringe of AGW proponents, and fixated upon by denialists who are hell-bent on stirring the apparent (but not scientifically supported) exaggerations from the AGW camp. It is a strawman, and it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Note that just because simple linear regressions based on past data cannot inform us reliably about the future, does not mean that other (more comprehensive) models are not predictive. It’s all a matter of knowing what one’s statistical tools actually do, and of using one’s statistical tools appropriately.
Whilst the currently available data may approximately fit a linear trajectory (and it does not do so, well), at some point sooner or later in the future the regression parameters would fail to inform about changes in trajectory. That is why appropriate predictive tools should be used, and why the coefficient of a simple linear regression is not a “predictive correlation”.
(* just to point it out, when you quoted me here, you mixed up your dependent and independent variable references.)
What is the current trend in the mean global temperature anomaly?
….
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.97/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.07
Drongo, you used the DETREND function to remove the linear trend from that data, and then plotted linear trendlines?
that is a pretty insane approach.
SJT,
“If the sun were to double it’s output, would all the temperatures at the sites you named go up? If it were to halve it’s output, would all the temperatures at the sites you named go down?”
Going UP?? NO!!!!!
We take night and day temps. The measurements on the night side are still going down even as that extra energy starts to warm sites on the day side.
Are you claiming that it is all the Sun now???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Old SOD,
“when my pool thermometer reads 25°C for 70 days and 26°C for the next 30 days, i get a meaningful trend.”
Did you record whether you averaged up or down with each reading??? For instance, if you averaged down for 60 days averaged up for 10 days, averaged down for 10 days and averaged up for 20 days you know the trend won’t be the same!!! So, was it really meaningful just averaging those whole numbers???
If you took multiple readings of the pool temp each day at the same time instead of one, you could average them and increase your accuracy for that measurement. You then might be able to use the daily averages for a more meaningful trend!!! (providing something in the thermometer or procedure wasn’t BIASING the measurement. For instance you were measuring closer to the heater output for that last 30 days or you were not viewing the thermometer at the same angle!!)
A global average temperature of hundreds or thousands of places and thermometers is outside the application of this theory.
Let me try a different direction to attempt to show why this particular stretching of theory breaks down for our intended use, proving or disproving AGW.
You measure 15c at Denver with a humidity of 20%.
You measure 15c at Death Valley with a humidity of 20%.
Is the amount of energy in a cubic foot of air the same with these 2 measurements??
Probably not, but we also need the air pressure!!!
Yes you are measuring the temperature of the air at those thermometers. Unfortunately, what Global Warming is all about isn’t simple air temperature, it is about the amount of ENERGY in the system!!! In other words, we measure temperature for a PROXY of Global Warming. Unfortunately it is a poor proxy.
Without knowing the DENSITY of that cubic foot you have little idea of the energy content and therefore, AVERAGING THE TEMPS IS AN EXERCISE IN POINTLESS ENDEAVOURS IN RELATION TO AGW!!!!!
As Neil has been trying to tell you. IT AIN’T THE SAME THING!!!!
BJ; something we can get out of the way is this assertion by you;
“As to “runaway heating”, that discounted meme is just hysteria promoted by the media, or taken up the nutcase fringe of AGW proponents, and fixated upon by denialists who are hell-bent on stirring the apparent (but not scientifically supported) exaggerations from the AGW camp. It is a strawman, and it has nothing to do with the subject at hand”
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2008/12/james-hansens-agu-presentation-venus.html
In addition read something from tipping point Glikson or anything by Gore; the notion of runnaway is entirely a meme of the AGW crowd enough of whom are on record as justifying gross exaggeration to get their ‘message’ across; so drop that garbage if you want to be taken seriously.
Now you say; “When time (ie, “year”) is the independent variable, parameters from a regression based on data up to the present should not be used to project into the future. A simple linear regression does not automatically, or even reliably, inform us of the proportion of the future variability in the dependent variable that may be explained by the variability in the independent* variable; and to repeat, nor should such a regression be used to predict values of the dependent variable in the future.”
That being the case what is your opinion on this;
http://landshape.org/enm/a-semi-empirical-approach-to-sea-level-rise/#more-2618
Cohenite,
Thanks for reference to Climate Change:The Next Generation.
The comments by Obama heading up the site was revealing……” Because the truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources, it’s about protecting free and open inquiry !!!!!!! (Yeah Right)
It’s about ensuring that the facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Barack Obama. Ahahaha
AAhahahahahahaha . Ahahahhahaha.
Isn’t that just a classic. When a salesman wants to sell you a product that he knows is defective in a certain aspect and he knows that you know the defect, he’ll blatantly point out that the product does not have this defect.
Would you buy a used car off this guy?
Cohenite.
Let’s get this out of the way… I challenge you to go to RealClimate and assert that “scientifically-based proponents of anthropogenic global warming promote the idea of a ‘runaway’ warming”. Then we’ll see just what the professional climatology community says about this idea. If your insistence is correct, you will not be challenged on such a claim.
I note though that Hansen’s thoughts (as detailed in the pdf) that runaway warming could occur are predicated on an additional forcing that is “as small as 10-20W/m2”. He thinks that this would occur if ALL coal, plus ALL tar sands and All tar shales, were burned. I admit that I do not know off-hand if such a huge amount of combustion would give the necessary forcing for runaway, but two things are fundamental here – 1) if all such sources of carbon-based energy are combusted, the planet will be screwed from ocean acidification and other pollution and ecological breakings-down effects irrespective of any warming, as well as humanity being screwed in having no more energy-dense carbon fuel, and 2) I harbour a hope that humanity would not be so self-indulgent as to go so far down the path of such total carbon combustion as this.
If you have the specific analysis, based in physics, that contradicts Hansen’s opinion on the forcing resulting from the combustion of all coal, tar sands, and tar shales, then please share them with us.
In addition, whatever the caveats to his thoughts, Hansen himself remains as one single voice in the consensus, so you have not in any way established a case that demonstrates that runaway warming is subscribed to by the majority of climatologists/physicists.
And none of the above distraction changes the fact that you are avoiding a direct comment about the appropriateness of regressions in the context to which you seek to apply them. You have not in any way made a case that is defensible in science or statistics.
As to your landshape link, consider it carefully. It actually proves my point, notwithstanding the fact that a broken (analogue) watch is still correct twice a day.
Did you record whether you averaged up or down with each reading??? For instance, if you averaged down for 60 days averaged up for 10 days, averaged down for 10 days and averaged up for 20 days you know the trend won’t be the same!!! So, was it really meaningful just averaging those whole numbers???
i assume that the person doing the measurement is aware of the basic rounding rules, or that the instrument is already giving full numbers.
the example wasn t perfect. the real results would show the higher temperature slowly moving in, with a period that will have a change between the two numbers.
If you took multiple readings of the pool temp each day at the same time instead of one, you could average them and increase your accuracy for that measurement. You then might be able to use the daily averages for a more meaningful trend!!!
please explain this to Neil. he calls this “comparing apples to oranges”. and claims that, as you are not measuring the same thing, you can t get a more meaningful trend this way….
A global average temperature of hundreds or thousands of places and thermometers is outside the application of this theory.
this is completely false. the oceans are not different from a big pool. the very same principals apply.
You measure 15c at Denver with a humidity of 20%.
You measure 15c at Death Valley with a humidity of 20%.
Is the amount of energy in a cubic foot of air the same with these 2 measurements??
Probably not, but we also need the air pressure!!!
Yes you are measuring the temperature of the air at those thermometers. Unfortunately, what Global Warming is all about isn’t simple air temperature, it is about the amount of ENERGY in the system!!! In other words, we measure temperature for a PROXY of Global Warming. Unfortunately it is a poor proxy.
Without knowing the DENSITY of that cubic foot you have little idea of the energy content and therefore, AVERAGING THE TEMPS IS AN EXERCISE IN POINTLESS ENDEAVOURS IN RELATION TO AGW!!!!!
that is fine. so just provide us with 150 years of data showing the “amount of energy in the system”, and we will stop that thermometer thingy and use your data.
we are using temperature, because we have the data. we are not using an energy balance, because we don t have the data. simple.
for the trend, the difference will be tiny anyway. unless you can show us a massive change in earth energy capacity.
i am waiting…
As Neil has been trying to tell you. IT AIN’T THE SAME THING!!!!
no. what Neil said was: the problem is the “resolution of the measurements”. he moved pretty far from that completely false claim…
Old Sod,
“i assume that the person doing the measurement is aware of the basic rounding rules, or that the instrument is already giving full numbers.”
The question was not about whether the measurement was done correctly, although that is always a good question. The question was to illustrate that the trend can still be wrong. You can NEVER forget the possible errors. The trend could be flat and you would not know it due to the error.
Even here the conditions could bias the measurement. Did you start measuring at a shady spot and by the end you were measuring in a sunny spot? Is the pool filter on?? Are you measuring at the same depth? Is the pool used heavily some days and not at all others?? Do you not put on a cover every night?? blah blah blah
The theory is based on a LIMITED number of sources for random errors(comparatively). By changing so many of the conditions under which the measurement is made you invalidate the application of the theory. By measuring something DIFFERENT (location) you invalidate the theory. That is, if you infilled missing measurements with a measurement from your neighbors pool you would invalidate the theory. If you measured the temps in 5 pools close to your house and averaged them it would not increase the accuracy of that days measurement of your pool and would not give you a higher accuracy trend for your pool. (are the pools the same volume, do they have the same albedo, do they get the same insolation, are the measurements done in an equivalent fashion…)
You also seem to assume that computing a trend is equivalent to averaging one site’s measurements. It simply isn’t the same thing. You are not doing a simple AVERAGE when you compute a trend.
“please explain this to Neil. he calls this “comparing apples to oranges”. and claims that, as you are not measuring the same thing, you can t get a more meaningful trend this way….”
No, I must continue to try and get across the idea to YOU that multiple measurements of your pool at the same time and in the same location can be averaged for a probable increase in accuracy and a probable valid trend and that it is an appropriate application of the theory. Measuring air temps at different locations, times, and conditions and averaging them is NOT!!!! This theory has nothing to do with computing a trend from single measurements.
As you are only taking one measurement each time you are not increasing the accuracy so you have no basis for claiming sub 1c accuracy on the trend. Once time has passed before the next measurement, the idea that the random errors from one measurement to the next averages out becomes invalid due to too many changing conditions. In other words you have done nothing to reduce the possible random errors and you have increased the probability of bias in the measurements which invalidates the theory in these situations.
Let’s list again the problems involved in accepting that our measurements can be used to obtain a valid global average.
1) different locations
2) different times
3) different air pressure
4) different elevation
4) different humidity
5) different wind conditions
6) different thermometers
7) different TYPES of thermometers
8) merging brightness and thermometers
9) different methods of achieving di-urnal averaging for some stations
10) procedural differences including siting and methods of reading and transcribing data
11) ADJUSTMENTS (whether valid or not)
(feel free to jump in and add anything I missed)
“that is fine. so just provide us with 150 years of data showing the “amount of energy in the system”, and we will stop that thermometer thingy and use your data. ”
Since you do not have appropriate data to evaluate a situation you will continue ASSuming extreme conclusions. Yup, that sounds like AGW allllrighty.
By the way, since the thermometer thingy is PART OF determining the energy in the system, exactly why would you stop doing it?? Do it better maybe but stop?? Oh yeah, you might get data that contradicts your BELIEF SYSTEM!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“we are using temperature, because we have the data. we are not using an energy balance, because we don t have the data. simple.”
I am using your head to pound this nail because I do not have a hammer!!! I probably won’t get the nail in and I will either seriously damage you or you will pound ME!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I am not talking about energy BALANCE, only about the actual energy content of the atmosphere at the time of the measurement.
“for the trend, the difference will be tiny anyway. unless you can show us a massive change in earth energy capacity.”
The AGW trend is already tiny. No need for any massive changes in the energy in the system to invalidate it (although the heat capacity difference of high humidity air and low humidity air is pretty massive meaning your error is already potentially massive).
Isn’t that what this whole discussion is really about?? CO2 is supposed to contribute less than half of AGW according to the IPCC. So, we are not talking about even .6-.7c over 30 YEARS, we are only talking about a maximum of .3-.35c OVER 30 YEARS!!!! It is PROBABLY less. As virtually everything has changed in the system, except for the basic physics, during those 30 years, the idea that this particular theory of measurement could apply and give greater accuracy is simply ludicrous.
Sod wrote:
You are confused. There is no goal post movement. I suggested that the resolution was insufficient. You replied that CLT could be sed to improve it. And I replied that it does not apply.
So crash testing a brand new falcon will help me refine my estimate of the likely passenger injuries sustained from a crash in the previous model? Or that a crash test on an E-class Mercedes Benz will help me refine data I collected on an A class Mercedes Benz? You must be joking.
Multiple instruments that measure the same thing would help in this context. And it is not always possible to use exactly the same object – eg destructive testing. Using, eg, several instances of the same product from the same production line (“identical” products) is the only reasonable option in such cases.
And therein lies the problem. It can be raining here and now, but dry only several hundred metres away. It can be 30C here, and 25C 5km away, let alone 1000km away. But even ignoring that for the moment, where can I measure GMST? I cannot. I can create such a construct, and indeed several institutions do – HADCRU, GISS, RSS, UAH for example. These different groups do not produce data that match each other, so clearly methodology and data sources matter, yet you seem to be suggesting that all of these are better estimates of GMST than the magnitude of differences between them. They are all supposed to be estimates of GMST, and all are quoted to within 0.1C, yet the differences between them exceed 0.1C in many cases. They can’t all be right.
Providing we meet certain conditions, I have already agreed to this. My arguement is not that such techniques do not work, but that you cannot apply them because the assumptions on which they are based are not met. You have not yet provided any arguements to refute this – the only time you have come close is in the very post I am replying to, and even then you appear to be suggesting that there is some distance limit that may apply, but it’s very vague exactly at what point we have stopped measuring the “same thing”.
BJ, Hansen clearly says Earth could end up being like Venus; the cause of the coal and tar burning is neither here nor there [and there are a number of analyses which put the total CO2 concentration from that scenario at ~ 1000ppm; if that concentration was going to do a Venus it would have done so in the past]; but there are plenty of other apocalyptic scientists out there; Glickson;
http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2699
The lads at MIT;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/26/how-not-to-make-a-climate-photo-op/#more-8038
Stephen Schneider, ANU;
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-threat-to-heritage-sites-20090801-e592.html
Thomas Schelling, Kofi Annan, Clive Hamilton and the media;
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/stop-wasting-time-and-save-the-planet-mr-rudd-20090613-c6oo.html?page=-1
If pro-AGW scientists were promoting a realistic view don’t you think they should repudiate such bunkum; the fact they don’t makes them culpable and collaborators in this scare-mongering.
Cohenite.
So, how did your challenge at RealClimate go?
And excuse me if I don’t accept media and blog sources as accurate representations of what the climatology community agree on with respect to Venusian runaway heatings. Perhaps you could refer to peer-reviewed, Web of Science indexed professional literature to make your ‘point’?
And this is all beside the real point anyway. I guess that as a lawyer and as the secretary of the Australian Climate Sceptics Party you are bound to defend the innocence of your ‘client’, and when you client happens to be the inapproprite use of simple linear regressions to make claims beyond the scope of regressed data, you are bound to attempt to distract the jury with irrelevant strawmen arguments.
Well, that isn’t going to fly. In case you issed it the first time, I’ll repeat it for the jury’s benefit:
Your use of regressions to predict future temperatures is counter to the statistical guidelines for using regressions, and in any event it does not reflect the methodologies that climatologists use to predict the rise of temperature under different emissions scenarios.
Of course, if you believe that your statement that:
you will use the regression to predict, with “78% probability” of accuracy, the “movement” of annual mean global temperatures for the next ten years.
This should be interesting, for a number of reasons…
BJ, Hansen clearly says Earth could end up being like Venus; the cause of the coal and tar burning is neither here nor there [and there are a number of analyses which put the total CO2 concentration from that scenario at ~ 1000ppm; if that concentration was going to do a Venus it would have done so in the past]; but there are plenty of other apocalyptic scientists out there; Glickson;
And I have talked to one once who said it was very unlikely, since we had much higher levels in the past. There is, of course, a lot of debate and differences of opinion over the extent of AGW, but no argument over the basic facts and the need for action now if we want to prevent serious consequences. As Dirty Harry said, do you feel lucky, punk?
Sod,
What is the current trend in the mean global temperature anomaly?
Global cooling by 0.71 deg C from 1878 to 1911, for 33 years.
Global warming by 0.53 deg C from 1911 to 1944, for 33 years.
Global cooling by 0.48 deg C from 1944 to 1976, for 32 years.
Global warming by 0.67 deg C from 1976 to 1998, for 22 years.
The point you just don’t seem to understand is that the oscillating warming during this period is as natural as the oscillating cooling by a similar amount.
BJ; just drop the RC puerility please; to clarify further; the independent variable here is CO2 and the dependent variable can be temperature, sea level, hurricane intensity etc; you say:
“Your use of regressions to predict future temperatures is counter to the statistical guidelines for using regressions, and in any event it does not reflect the methodologies that climatologists use to predict the rise of temperature under different emissions scenarios”
This from sod and little will’s favourite reference:
“Regression analysis is widely used for prediction (including forecasting of time-series data”
I gave you some links to the Ramsdorf controversy about predictions of sea level increase before; Ramsdorf used regression [all tarted up] to generate those predictions; he was wrong; here is another link; Stokesy and I have an exchange at the end and to assist you I want you to think running means and why a break model is preferable;
http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-2007-discredited/#disqus_thread
SJT;
“As Dirty Harry said, do you feel lucky, punk?”
Actually, I AM lucky PUNK!!!
How many 57 year olds do you know who have been riding sports motorcycles like idiots for 40 years with only a couple of broken bones to show for it?!?!?!?! Those who haven’t been hospitalized, like me, are ALL extremely LUCKY!!!
I am also still quite healthy and run and bicycle regularly!!
YUP, just call me LUCKY!!!!
Of course, with AGW, I don’t NEED to be lucky cause it AIN’T HAPPENIN’ Y’ALL!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Bernard J., although I’m not educated enough to understand much of your arguments, I must say as a skeptic that you have introduced a level of sophistication to the AGW side of the debate here that has been sadly lacking. I’ve also noticed that Sod and SJT have improved in the quality of their arguments recently, perhaps inspired by your standards.
Please continue contributing to this blog so that there can be more robust debate. I’m afraid our side has had it too easy for far too long.
Derek Smith.
I have just posted another piece that seems to have evaporated into the moderation bin. Assuming that it passes muster, and in light of your very temperate words (for which I thank you), I should probably apologise in advance if there is a slightly snarky undertone to what I typed.
It is encouraging when debaters in any issue are actually open to opposing ideas, and it is especially encouraging that someone here has been willing to consider that perhaps I trying to make a valid point.
Truly sceptical arguments from both sides of the fence benefit from properly informed participants. If cohenite is going to demonstrate where climatologists, physicists and statisticians have it wrong, he and his colleagues need to do it using the appropriate analytical tools, and to use them in appropriate contexts.
If he can do so, and show that there really is more defensible scientifically-based doubt about the state of the body of AGW understanding that, then I for one would be at the front of the pack to hear about it.
Bernard J wrote:
Couldn’t agree more. Only problem is, I’m a “luke-warmer” – I expect that we should see some warming from increased CO2, as this is basic physics. However, what data we do have does not appear to suggest – to me anyway – that we can expect to see the positive feedbacks that are apparent in the models. I would have no problem with the climate modelling community if they would simply acknowledge that it appears they have previously over-estimated positive feedbacks – hey, they’re doing the best they can, and it’s certainly one of, if not the, most complex system anyone has ever tried to model, so mistakes this early in the piece are to be expected. I cringe when I hear the proclaimations of impending doom based on such models when there is never any mention of uncertainty and so on. Mayhap it’s not their fault that this happens, but certainly they play their part in making it so. Nor am I much impressed when the forcing (anthro CO2)is greater than anticipated, the resultant (GMST) is lower than anticipated, and yet we hear that “things are worse than we thought” – arrrgh! The ducking and weaving over the recent “stalling” of AGW – “it’s in the oceans”, “err, well, no it’s not in the oceans it may have been radiated back to space” etc etc – is equally cringe-worthy. As is the almost religeous dismissal of people like McIntyre who find mistakes – that such people did not learn from the hockey-stick affair shows appalling hubris and arrogance (witness SM and RC “slogging it out” over the latest kerfuffle – use of “upside-down” proxies – even when the originator of the dataset in question says it has been used improperly, they still keep up with “it doesn’t matter”!).
Over-selling of AGW is much more alarming than the AGW we have so far experienced itself – when we finally do have a good handle on what’s happening, these people will be ignored because they cried wolf once too often. And that really could be fatal to humanity. Yet whenever anyone points this out, they are labelled as a “denier” or in the pay of “big oil/coal” and their concerns dismissed without discussion. Hey, the alarmists may be right even though it doesn’t look like it as yet, but with so much unknown about climate and such short (in climate terms) reliable records, to make “90% certain” projections is, well, risky at best and reckless at worst. IMO, of course.
Bernard J wrote:
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on Spencer’s latest WRT cloud coverage as a forcing rather than a feedback.
IMO, Spencer is one of the few that questions everything. Sure, he has to “back-pedal” often, but at least he’s trying to poke holes in things rather than just accepting them as gospel – we always learn something from such people, and seeing the treatment he gets from the AGW “faithful” makes me want to shake them and ask “Do you have no knowledge of history? Can you not see that this is the very essence of the scientific method? Can you not see that this is a reflection of the Royal Society’s motto?” Arrgh! Enough…
Bernard J., thanks for the comment and I look forward to reading your other response when it comes through. Now if someone from the AGW scientific fraternity could just stop people like Tim Costello from claiming that the recent earthquakes and tsunamis were of climate change origin(Adelaide Advertiser), there would be less huffing and puffing on the skeptics side.
Cheers.
Well said Neil, my position is very similar.
The mention of temperature and pressure measurements reminded me of a question I have asked on blogs before but not received any answer, as the temperature on Venus at one bar is close to 37o C at 67n ( Magellan Probe, Jenkins)and is in the ballpark for earth temps considering increased insolation because of its position, and internal heat supply, what happened to runaway Greenhouse because of its preponderant CO2 atmosphere?
Julian,
Do you have a link for that Venusian temperature measurement? It sounds a bit odd. The insolation there is roughly 4X what we Earthlings are accustomed to. (Earth is roughly twice as far from the sun, and relative insolation is approximated by an inverse-square law.)
You did specify 1 bar pressure. My limited understanding is that the Venusian atmosphere is considerably denser than that of our fair planet. If so, that 1 bar would be high in that atmosphere, rather than at the toasty surface. Or are there hidden correction factors at play here?
Testing, 2 replies to Larry didn’t get through
Larry,
For some reason links are not coming through, Google Venus temperature pressure and it is link one and two , data sync and nov stanford edu
with four times TSI temperatures should increase by a quarter of that according to Lief Svalgaard which is still way bellow the observed at one Bar which is around 59km.
Either Co2 is cooling, I think there has been at least one paper on that, or sulphates are doing the job. There is an article in today’s Australian, “Heat is on Global Warming ” that has a cheap solution to warming if it does happen.
Larry,
got a bit muddled with the third attempt, the observed temperatures are way below what they should be, given the increased TSI, yes?
Top german news paper runs CRU hack on front page.
The tricks of the researchers on climate change.
WUWT.
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article5294872/Die-Tricks-der-Forscher-beim-Klimawandel.html#xmsg_comment&sl=de&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Dear Jennifer,
I am after studies/research/confirmation that deep water aquifers are indeed plutonically sourced. Can you help me?
Cheers and thanks,
Malcolm.